Columbia Pictures | Release Date: July 3, 2012
7.1
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1639 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,145
Mixed:
331
Negative:
163
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 characters (5000 max)
8
RippedCurtainJul 4, 2012
This film is Great. The character of Peter is less annoying and more realistic this time around thanks to the great acting of Andrew Garfield. The origin story is better and weighs down the movie less than the original outing. Although iThis film is Great. The character of Peter is less annoying and more realistic this time around thanks to the great acting of Andrew Garfield. The origin story is better and weighs down the movie less than the original outing. Although i loved the Green Goblin from the original film, the Lizard is by far a better antagonist, this is probably due to the performance given by Rhys Ifans. All in all this is a great superhero film, you couldn't ask for much more (apart for some more time before a reboot.) Brilliant Action, Brilliant character development/design and brilliant casting. Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
8
HappymonkSep 5, 2012
The Amazing Spiderman might just about live up to it's name. It is a definite step up from the stuffy Spiderman 3, but I don't think it quite reached the heights of Spiderman 1 and 2. The plot is similar to that of Spiderman 1, but it doesn'tThe Amazing Spiderman might just about live up to it's name. It is a definite step up from the stuffy Spiderman 3, but I don't think it quite reached the heights of Spiderman 1 and 2. The plot is similar to that of Spiderman 1, but it doesn't suffer because of this: as it moves along at quite a brisk pace to lead into Spidey's climatic battle with the Lizard. The Lizard was a good choice for the movie, as many people would not have heard of him before, but he is not quite distinguished enough from the Green Goblin for my liking (even though he is a different character his themes and actions are slightly too similar to those of the Green Goblin in Spiderman 1). The acting is good all round, and Andrew Gafield's Spiderman seems closer to the source material than Tobey Maguire's, pulling one-liners from every direction and appears more awkward as a person, which is a good thing. Now that they've got the back story over with they can really focus on a very exciting sequel, which I am very much looking forward in anticipation, 83/100. Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
7
quincytheodoreJul 9, 2012
Proving that a vintage concept done the right way is never old, The Amazing Spider-Man uses its familiar plot with addition of great cast to deliver a good superhero flick. It's hard not to make comparison with the last decade's movie, but itProving that a vintage concept done the right way is never old, The Amazing Spider-Man uses its familiar plot with addition of great cast to deliver a good superhero flick. It's hard not to make comparison with the last decade's movie, but it manages to avoid overused mechanics just enough and still pays respect to the core of the saga. The harsher tone is very visible with darker New York and more vindictive Peter Parker who surprisingly exhibits more angst than Spider-Man 3's Venom. Andrew Garfield is amazing, he's just talented and a perfect cast for a teenage confused by his new found power but still with some wry humor. He's more organic, relaxed and looking very young beyond his age. His relationship with his surrogate parents is humbly relatable. Martin Sheen as Ben Parker and Sally Field as May Parker are brilliant, a kind authoritative figure and affectionate sympathetic guardian, respectively. The bond between them is seemingly genuine, a heartfelt care despite their ongoing tribulation. Martin has delivered one of the more convincing speeches in a rather private context than grandiose fashion of superhero pep talk.

Emma Stone is okay as Gwen Stacy, she's clever and doesn't fumble in the role of damsel in distress, a great incentive by the director. And she's also hot, no upside down kiss this time. Rhys Ifans plays Dr. Curt Conners, Peter's somewhat mentor and also enemy. He's a confident albeit reclusive brilliant scientist, harboring less than secretive motive to repair his flawed physique. His acting is good, facial expressions are still present in his scaly CG persona, but his character has been plagued by the same schizophrenic mentality as previous archenemies.

Acrobatic action is the ever present hallmark of Spider-Man, it's more flowing and enjoyable. I like the Spidey-cam, or whatever they call the first person view of Spider-Man is. If only it's more evenly utilized and edited to coexist with the action, it's probably more exhilarating, but that's just a minor complaint. The movement is fast but still regains the clarity of surrounding, which is important on making sense of what transpires on the screen. You can still see the CG effect of the combat, although it
Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
8
a7xfanJul 4, 2012
This movie is hard to talk about. The fact that it is really different from the Sam Raimi franchise was a plus for me because I personally didn't care about the previous franchise. So I gave this film chance because I knew that it would playThis movie is hard to talk about. The fact that it is really different from the Sam Raimi franchise was a plus for me because I personally didn't care about the previous franchise. So I gave this film chance because I knew that it would play off the original comics and I must say the "Amazing Spider-Man" amazed me. From the action sequences to the humor to the chemistry between Garfield and Stone was also pretty good. So see this movie in theaters and you shouldn't be disappointed. Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
8
zerothetheifJul 5, 2012
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
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
8
Viral_VoraJul 24, 2012
Marc Webb tackles Spiderman in The Amazing Spiderman. A bit presumptuous if you ask me to put the adjective Amazing in the title itself especially when you are basically one film old and taking over from Sam Raimi and have relative new comerMarc Webb tackles Spiderman in The Amazing Spiderman. A bit presumptuous if you ask me to put the adjective Amazing in the title itself especially when you are basically one film old and taking over from Sam Raimi and have relative new comer Andrew Garfield donning the spandex unitard that Tobey Maguire wore while swinging across New York City. Does Webb rise to the challenge or does he fail. Does Andrew Garfield succeed where Tobey failed (in impressing me as spidey). Does Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey make a more compelling love interest for Spiderman than Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane Watson.
Speaking of Marc Webb, I loved his 500 Days of Summer and his unusual approach to a "not-a-love-story". The comparisons to Sam Raimi are inevitable and there are even those are calling this as Spiderman 4 - It is not. This is Webb's human approach to the Spiderman lore. There is a lot more back story as Webb tries to establish the beginning and even the story before the beginning. Webb and his screenplay writer Vanderbilt have infused the story with a lot of humor and it helps you relate to peter parker/Spiderman that i found lacking in Raimi and Maguire's Spiderman often I felt Maguire came off as insufferable. And for someone whose first movie was a romantic comedy heavily reliant on music Webb packs a punch with the action sequences that would make Nolan proud.

Andrew Garfield as a nerdy geeky bullied Peter Parker is charming and as Spiderman is a hero you feel like cheering for. Garfield tasted success with The social network and makes his mark as the masked vigilante. He transitions seamlessly between being a lost helpless orphan to being a radioactive-spider-bitten swinging super hero, a bullied nerdy geeky high-schooler to Emma Stone kissing teenager. Andrew Garfield makes geek chic and makes the unitard sexy. Maybe he is too tall to be Spiderman but I'll take him over Tobey
Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
9
c0nn0rJul 25, 2012
This is the best spiderman movie yet!! The characters, plot, cgi, acting and the fact that Tobey Maguire isn't spiderman anymore is what makes The Amazing Spider-Man better than Sam Raimi's spiderman movies and this one follows the comicsThis is the best spiderman movie yet!! The characters, plot, cgi, acting and the fact that Tobey Maguire isn't spiderman anymore is what makes The Amazing Spider-Man better than Sam Raimi's spiderman movies and this one follows the comics unlike before. Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
8
HenryCaseDec 25, 2012
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 movieI'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
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
7
BrianMcCriticMar 15, 2013
I liked the Raimi Spider Man movies (even the third one was ok), but unlike those movies I really liked how Marc Webb handles the relationship between Peter and Gwen.
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
10
Roadrunner90Mar 16, 2013
The Amazing Spider-Man directed by Marc Webb is a fantastic reboot to the Spider-Man franchise. Despite having a similar plot line to Sam Raimi's 2002 Spider-Man, Webb's interpretation created a darker and more serious tone that established aThe Amazing Spider-Man directed by Marc Webb is a fantastic reboot to the Spider-Man franchise. Despite having a similar plot line to Sam Raimi's 2002 Spider-Man, Webb's interpretation created a darker and more serious tone that established a story arc. Starting with the cast, Andrew Garfield's portrayal of Peter Parker did well to show the struggles of not only losing his uncle but not knowing the fate of his parents. We see that with Tobey Maguire's performance but it is eclipsed by the lighter tone of the 2002 movie. Garfield's portrayal also has more chemistry with his primary love interest, providing for a more intimate and youthful subplot complementing the already mentioned dark tone. Kirsten Dunst's performance resembled a summer blockbuster aimed at teenagers. Despite the common view that Raimi used a better supporting cast with James Franco, William Dafoe, and JK Simmons, it is very difficult to ignore the on screen presence of Sally Field, Martin Sheen, Rhys Ifans, and Denis Leary. One standout performance that was not mentioned was that of Irrfan Khan. Though he does not have a lot of screen time, Khan's performance added to the tone and complemented Dr. Connors transformation into the Lizard. The CGA and visual effects do provide for thrilling and captivating viewing experience but since the two movies were made a decade apart, it is difficult to praise one over the other owing to the vast advances in computer technology. One visual aspect that the comic fan base debates is the suit. The Raimi suit had a very strong resemblance to the comic and cartoon series. Webb's artistic team provided a new suit that allowed Spider-Man to look more athletic and agile. The darker toned fabric with a worn surface gave it a more realistic look. The only major mystery that created a plot hole was how does a high school kid create such a suit on his own in his bedroom. Overall "The Amazing Spider-Man" was a pleasurable film that undoubtedly surpassed its 2002 counterpart. The cast along with the plot and the visual presentation generated the interest and anticipation for a sequel. Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
10
xdarkdrakeJul 20, 2012
I was very sceptical about seeing this reboot so soon after the last franchise did a good job with Toby at the helm of Spidey. I never heard of Andrew Garfield before this movie, but I thought he did an amazing job at portraying "youthI was very sceptical about seeing this reboot so soon after the last franchise did a good job with Toby at the helm of Spidey. I never heard of Andrew Garfield before this movie, but I thought he did an amazing job at portraying "youth angst". This is a must see even if you liked the previous versions! Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
4
ArgoLolJul 18, 2012
What...
This movie has to be one of THE cheesiest superhero movies I've ever seen. The beginning was nice and sophisticated, but the villian...THAT terrible villian Lizard had no characted whatsoever, and neither did Peter. He was just a
What...
This movie has to be one of THE cheesiest superhero movies I've ever seen. The beginning was nice and sophisticated, but the villian...THAT terrible villian Lizard had no characted whatsoever, and neither did Peter. He was just a worried and aggrivated teen who had anger issues after his uncle died. He was so 1-Dimensional that I even groaned loudly in theaters. The plot is what really made me unconcious. The main threat is to infect the- wait this is spoiler free. Um, well, the main threat of the enemie is extremely predictable, and is a common plot that even superhero TV shows use frequently. The emotional parts in the end were also kind of a laughing stock. The action is not as bad, but it's not the most believable due to the strange CGI used on Lizard. This is only worthy to watch as a popcorn flick or as a low quality time waster, other than that, the Spider Man from 2001 is a lot batter choice.
Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
8
maverick0023Jul 23, 2012
Fun but not perfect. Did the movie need to be made? No but I do not care because no movie needs to get made. This is entertainment and has the best Stan Lee cameo ever
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
8
SantiagoMAKiiNAJul 8, 2012
I hate to admit it, but I walked into this movie cursing myself. "Here we go again. Another rehash of a super hero that has been done a million times." The funny think is walked out of the theater saying, "about time someone did justice toI hate to admit it, but I walked into this movie cursing myself. "Here we go again. Another rehash of a super hero that has been done a million times." The funny think is walked out of the theater saying, "about time someone did justice to Peter Parker." Don't you just love it when a movie both proves you wrong and awakens you to bigger and better possibilities?
I'm not saying this is anywhere near Christopher Nollan's universe. But, what a cool movie this was. Awesome script, phenomenal direction work, and enough effects to support the story without turning it into another amusement park ride.
The only scene that I had hoped not to find in the movie is the one when they line up the construction cranes. A touch of Hollywoodese. We'll look the other way on that one. It is a studio picture after all.
In general, I very much believed the story and the characters. Everyone was riding a good balance between what life deals them and the sacrifices behind changing our own fate. What a script. You even feel bad for the bad guys in this.
Andrew Garfield was a great voice for modern teenage angst, and Emma Stone was equally significant. Great pair to front this. Everyone else felt like the perfect piece of the puzzle. Although I have a feeling the majority of the kudos on this one should go to a flawless script and surgical camera work. This is what happens when talented filmmakers get together and decide to turn the camp in comic books into a real life drama. Congratulations. I'm sold!
Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
8
CezarcoatlJul 6, 2012
Peter Parker more Peter Parker than ever, and Spider-man more Spider-man than ever.
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
7
ROMshinobiJul 13, 2012
This was a good super hero movie. It was basically the same movie as the Spider Man with Toby MacGuire in that it had the same plot, same type of characters, and settings/scenes. They did change the details of course providing interestingThis was a good super hero movie. It was basically the same movie as the Spider Man with Toby MacGuire in that it had the same plot, same type of characters, and settings/scenes. They did change the details of course providing interesting twists to the essential plot points. The action scenes were better than the Toby MacGuire movie and overall, it had a grittier feel than the original. This spider man was never really a true geek/wus as Toby and when he changes into a tough guy it's more convincing. The main problem with this movie is that the acting isn't nearly as good as the Toby Spider Man. Toby, let's face it, is a far superior actor to this guy. They also made the villain's primary goal very lame. They could have done a lot more with the lizard and some diabolical plans. But, the Lizard was a pretty cool villain overall. The movie is more of a 5 compared to the Toby Spider man but I have to give it an 7 compared to the balance of super hero movies out there which are usually quite good. Cheers! Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
metabaconJul 13, 2012
First of all, I believe this film should not have been made at all, at least until a much later date. I believe that the reboot of the series came much too early. However, I did still enjoy this movie to some extent. Being a huge fan ofFirst of all, I believe this film should not have been made at all, at least until a much later date. I believe that the reboot of the series came much too early. However, I did still enjoy this movie to some extent. Being a huge fan of Spider-Man and having read the original comics, they spent far too long on the story as to how Peter managed to obtain his powers. However, the fight scenes easily make up for this, which are just exhilarating. I also believe that they managed to portray the Lizard very well. Andrew Garfield also manages to create a very like-able character. However, I couldn't help but notice was an absence of some key characters, including Harry Osborn. So, overall, action scenes are great, CGI brilliant, but the first half will likely bore those who have already seen the previous films. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
10
ORidenourJul 17, 2012
My reasoning for giving this movie a 10 is not because I thought THIS movie was great(although I enjoyed this one more then the others) I thought that this spiderman series could be great, this is a different spin on the spiderman characterMy reasoning for giving this movie a 10 is not because I thought THIS movie was great(although I enjoyed this one more then the others) I thought that this spiderman series could be great, this is a different spin on the spiderman character that I think is good. His inability to shoot webs out of his wrists which many of my friend,s and I'm sure other people, disliked actually gave a sense of realism to me, but to some I guess that they don't care if its realistic or not, all they want isa superhero. But all in all this movie kept my attention and maybe me interested in superhero movies again(p.s. I thought Andrew Garfield did a much better job of being spiderman than toby macguire did) Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
gregthreetJul 8, 2012
The new Spider-man played by Andrew Garlfield is a-lot more down to earth and cool as a actor, overall boosting the films rating because he's a more relate-able character. This makes the film a-lot better to view because the actor isn'tThe new Spider-man played by Andrew Garlfield is a-lot more down to earth and cool as a actor, overall boosting the films rating because he's a more relate-able character. This makes the film a-lot better to view because the actor isn't forced to cry all the time. A.k.a He makes the Tobey Maguire Spider-man look like a complete **** The villain is most likely the best in the series because he is the most **** up one and this also makes the fights more tense. It is a damn good film, so yeah, go see it. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
spartan8330Jul 4, 2012
Stayed much truer to the original comics than its predecessor. Garfield plays a much more believable Peter Parker, and his chemistry with Stone is spot on. The dialog is cute and amusing, but at times Twilight-esk. The action sequences areStayed much truer to the original comics than its predecessor. Garfield plays a much more believable Peter Parker, and his chemistry with Stone is spot on. The dialog is cute and amusing, but at times Twilight-esk. The action sequences are "meh". It's Peter and Gwen's relationship that make this movie good. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
emngraJul 4, 2012
It was good, but not great. I am a Spidey-fan, and I loved seeing him again on the big screen. The cast is great. Garfields Peter Parker AND Spider-man is the best I have seen. Stone is great as Gwen, showing the best girlfriend in aIt was good, but not great. I am a Spidey-fan, and I loved seeing him again on the big screen. The cast is great. Garfields Peter Parker AND Spider-man is the best I have seen. Stone is great as Gwen, showing the best girlfriend in a Spider-Man movie, plus Ifans as Connors/Lizard. The cast is brilliant, love it very much.

The story, not so much. Sure I loved how Peter got his powers, and how he experience it. But the rest is just, not that interesting. The one thing I am must irritaited of, is that many thing that you saw and heard from the trailers, are not in the movie. For example: It was all planned that Peter got the powers. So story isn´t that great. But what I thought was the good parts i this movie was; The cast, fantastic! The story has been modern more alike. Bringing the origin of Spidey and the Lizard very good.

So here are the plus and minuses about the movie:

Plus
The cast
Modern-era
Bringing the Origin of Spidey and The Lizard good

Minuses
Story, could have been so much more. Expected alot from the trailers.
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
9
DyrianJul 6, 2012
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
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
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
8
BryceHooglandJul 9, 2012
I was a little on edge about this Spider-Man reboot because I grew up watching Sam Raimi
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
reddave2Jul 11, 2012
While certainly better than the third spiderman movie, this reboot suffers from a sense of over familiarity. So much of the origin story is known through the other version that its hard not to feel bored as the first half of the movie setsWhile certainly better than the third spiderman movie, this reboot suffers from a sense of over familiarity. So much of the origin story is known through the other version that its hard not to feel bored as the first half of the movie sets things up. Thankfully, Andrew Garfield is pretty good as Peter Parker and he carries things along. The action scenes are also an improvement on the original trilogy. The plot with the Lizard suffers from having to run alongside the origin stuff. I have no doubt that the sequel will benefit from being able to run with its own ideas from the get-go. Its not a bad start but its not brilliant. Sandwiched in between the popcorn fun of the Avengers movie and the (as yet unseen as I write this) epic conclusion to Nolans Batman movie trilogy was never going to be easy but Amazing Spiderman is worth a look regardless and the inevitable follow up may be more an indication of whether Garfield and Co. rise above Tobey Maguires run. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
8
ChrisFarnworthJul 17, 2012
To be honest I went to this film not expecting much and I came out in eager anticipation for the next. It was much better than the first of the old series with this new film going back to the comics to tell the truth about Spiderman
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
10
jnicole82Jul 18, 2012
Loved this movie! The new spider man was very good. I prefer it over any spider man yet! I wasn't totally thrilled w the villain but the creation of it was interesting. I liked having all new actors. I just fell in love w this Peter ParkerLoved this movie! The new spider man was very good. I prefer it over any spider man yet! I wasn't totally thrilled w the villain but the creation of it was interesting. I liked having all new actors. I just fell in love w this Peter Parker and he was a great actor. I would've never thought I'd like it more than the others. Gotta see it!!!! Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
10
OnemoregleekJul 21, 2012
Amazing. The best of the Spider Man's movies. But I wanna see Mary Jane and Gwen in a fight for Peter in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, I'd appreciate that :)
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews