User Score
7.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1358 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. Apr 20, 2013
    9
    Does "The Amazing Spider-Man" do anything new to movies? Well, no. But the genres that exist are all in there. The movie has its moments of humor, horror, romance, action, adventure, thriller, it has simply everything, and the way they used all that to make a superhero movie is simply one of the best ways they could use it.
  2. Apr 11, 2013
    4
    I was a big fan of the original Spider-man trilogy (yes even Spider-man 3), and i was being optimistic in hoping that this film would introduce a new darker quality to the character and the retelling of the origin, but overall i found the film to be underwhelming, unoriginal and in some parts, just plain stupid. Firstly i must point out that Andrew Garfield did a great job of portraying Peter Parker, as did Emma stone of Gwen Stacy, and they have good chemistry, but the script is not particularly thoughtful nor engaging, just classic cheeky rom-com stuff, but i guess there's nothing wrong with that, and the romance between the two is what makes this film a hit with the ladies. The Lizard on the other hand, played by Rhys Ifans, is a complete Ra's al Ghul rip off from Liam Neeson in Batman Begins, speaking in a slow wise voice and his plan to evolve the human race into raging lizards, for the benefit of the future of the planet or some crap. Much like Ra's extreme views of wiping out corruption for the the same reason. Much of the story is the same, dont be fooled, apart from the back story to peter's parents, its much like the original Spider-man of 2002. The special effects were pretty impressive but that basically meant the action sequences were hectic and cartoonish, which i guess is to capture the comic book style, but overall are boring. There are no cleverly planned out set pieces or twists in the plot, the final fight is on top of a skyscraper at night and another confrontation takes place on a bridge at night, very imaginative. This film is well made and the acting is pretty solid, and i can understand why newcomers to spiderman are loving it, but if you are familiar with Sam Raimi's trilogy and have watched a fair few superhero films like myself, you are likely to be disappointed with this film. Hopefully the sequel can find its own groove. Expand
  3. Apr 8, 2013
    9
    The Amazing Spider-Man is the Spider-Man film that we were all waiting to see. It has a fantastic cast that all give great performances, a great score to accompany it, and great action sequences that can only be put as simply: amazing.
  4. Mar 31, 2013
    9
    This is a solid reboot of a rather recent series of films that probably didn't need to be done so soon, but it has been done very well. Andrew Garfield is great as the new Peter Parker and overall it's a great cast! Storyline is similar to how the other series starts out but things change here and there. MJ is no more but Gwen is in the leading lady role played by the gorgeous Emma Stone who does a great job! Overall it's nothing but entertainment and quite enjoyable to watch Expand
  5. Mar 24, 2013
    10
    I was hesitant to see this movie, as the ones done in the early 2000's were exceptional. This version did not disappointing me, showing the early life of Peter Parker that was based more closely on the comics than the original that starred Tobey McGuire.
  6. Mar 16, 2013
    10
    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 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
  7. Mar 15, 2013
    7
    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.
  8. Mar 10, 2013
    8
    It has all element a good entertaining superhero movie needs. A good plot with nice performances. Its more thought provoking than Sam Raimi's Spider-Man.
  9. Mar 6, 2013
    8
    That was fast.. this reboot, that is, Sony are now bound to hold the record for the quickest franchise reboot in history, and many may now ask, did Spider-Man need a brand new set of films?
    Personally, no. The last film in the original trilogy starring Tobey Maguire and directed by Sam Raimi was a mess to say the least, but Iron Man 2 was a bit of a shambles, it didn't get a reboot.

    Although it is clear that there wasn't much necessity to restart this superhero, thats not to say this isn't a good film, because its actually a great film, with a few inkling flaws that stick out, but this tells an excellent origin story that the original never did.
    New director Marc Webb tells an interesting story here, he goes right back to basics with our hero Peter Parker being left by his parents to his Aunt May (Sally Field) and Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) after a interestingly vague opening, thus sets a motion many mysterious and unexplained events that will truly hold you to enjoy this film.
    We are then introduced to an older Peter, (played by Andrew Garfield) who brings a new sense of spirit and light-hearted,pop-cultured nature to the role. He longs after Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone) who is in his class and who is also working at Oscorp, where Peter is then bitten by a genetically modified spider, he then realises that he has incorporated superhuman abilities and uses them to his advantage. Working at Oscorp also is Dr. Curt Connors, who is attempting to re-grow is amputated arm by combining genes, with disastrous results.
    When tragedy strikes, Peter seeks revenge, now donning a custom-made spidey suit. He soon attracts attention to himself through the police and of course Dr Connors, and as he continues to explore his abilities, he shows his emotional attachment to Gwen.
    This love story is Webb's strongest point of the film, not just between Gwen and Peter, but the overall reaction to situations within the film, it feels more real and life-like and brings the movie in a different direction than its predecessors. The one low point has to be the pacing of the story, as it never seems to be told as a stand alone film, it always seems to be building to something we, the viewer know we won't see in this film, whether its unanswered questions or unexplained plot developments that are not acted upon, it always seems that, 'yeah, we're gonna leave that to the sequel'...why? Why not tell the story now and develop later?
    But this aside, it has excellent acting in the form of the two young leads, and a strangely enjoyable emotional depth that Marc Webb delivers with excellent confidence, perhaps not a mind-blowing reboot, but certainly an excellent restoration of the franchise.
    Expand
  10. Mar 3, 2013
    1
    I just don't get it. The Spider Man trilogy started in 2002, and now we already have a reboot? Man, can't wait until this superhero fad dies off and never comes back.
  11. Mar 2, 2013
    10
    Amazing Spider Man? I agree!!!!! This was way better than the Dancing spider man on the other version! I loved it! It felt much more realistic, it`s more like the new batman series! The story, the action, everything was good. I usually hate the romance scenes since every movie feels they need one, but I can in this movie it blended in with no problem. This is the best super hero movie that I can think of after "Batman" of course. Expand
  12. Mar 2, 2013
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Amazing Spiderman, what do I think of this movie, it's... AMAZING! Let's start off with the pros of this movie. First, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone's acting. I found the perfect performance of Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy. They show how they are both excellent actors because they show their romance for each other on screen well, they execute their scenes perfectly and adding a better relationship. I really like this acting. Another pro of this movie is the special effects. Spiderman and the Lizard have never looked better on screen in the school scene and the Oscorp scene etc. Since both those scenes were shot with CGI, this makes Spiderman and Lizard look amazing as I've said. More on the effects, when Spiderman web swings, the CGI blends so well together, I actually wished there were more scenes of Spidey web slinging. Next, director Marc Webb made a great mash-up of Comedy, Drama and Action together and I really loved how they gave Dr.Connors a split personality like Sam Raimi did with Norman Osborn and the Green Goblin. Finally, the crew have mad sure to follow the storyline correctly which is amazing because I loved Spiderman for 9 years. Now onto the cons of the movie. The suit development was short. We all know that Peter is a smart guy so making the suit was the one way to show his intelligence. But it went by so quickly it left the audience with little development. Next. the Lizard's writing. The character feels so bland because you didn't get to know him well. If Dr.Connors/Lizard was more deeply explored, he would've been a lot more likeable even though I did like his character. Finally,The quote "With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility". It was paraphrased but I would've preferred it to be said in those exact words. But wait there some more things I want to talk about. I found some really awesome scenes in this movie like the gang fight in the alley, the school scene with Spiderman and The Lizard etc. Also the movie had a bit of a dard tone to it and I don't make The Amazing Spiderman look like Batman because a lot of other movies are dark but it's not Batman all over again. My final verdict is a 9.5 out of 10. The cons listed held this movie back from being a 10 out of 10 but it was still fun and entertaining. Expand
  13. Feb 28, 2013
    7
    It's not a movie that wins awards and it's not close to reaching the magnificent height of "The Dark Knight", the best super hero-movie to date, but who cares? This film has got just the right amount of action and humour that is expected out of a Spider Man-film, and Andrew Garfield actually makes a great performance as the classic super hero.
  14. Feb 28, 2013
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. When I heard that Spider-Man was going to be rebooted, I was not supportive of the idea because I felt the story might not be good, and it's going to be weird seeing Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker /Spider-Man instead of Tobey Maguire. Nevertheless, I saw the Amazing Spider-Man and I was pleasantly surprised about what I saw. Its not perfect, but still manages to be a well creative story. So whats different about this movie? Well, the movie does a better job of telling Peter Parker's back story than the original Spider-Man trilogy. Second is the relationship between Uncle Ben and Peter Parker is a lot better. Third, I loved Uncle Ben in the original film, but I felt like he was side-tracked and I didn't knew much about him. This Uncle Ben is funny, he cares about his Peter, and wants to help him through his troubles. Its a sham that he dies during the movie because I really liked him. All these make the Amazing Spider-Man good, but I still have a few major issues with it. First is Andrew Garfield's dialogue isn't that great. He is good in the suit, but not in the speaking. Second is the characters, Emma Stone is a good actress and she does a good job as Gwen Stacy, but others like Dr. Conners isn't really that interesting, Denis Leary as Gwen's father was disappointing. I like Denis Leary, but I believe this is not one of his better movies, and everyone else is bland. The main problem I have with all these characters is we don't know much about their back story or their motive. Dr. Conners was okay, but I didn't know much about him. Even though the movie is basely on Spider-Man, I want to know about other characters even the scene is only 5 minutes long. The Amazing Spider-Man is a good movie, not one of my personal favorite, but still watchable. Expand
  15. Feb 18, 2013
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. When I first heard the Spider-Man film series was gonna be rebooted, I was pretty pissed. But then I saw the a trailer, and I thought "Hmm this could be pretty good". So one day I was on a plane, decided to watch a movie, and there it was the Amazing Spider-Man. And what do I have to say? It's just as good as the first movie. I find Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man more humorous then Tobey Maguire's, however I felt Tobey's fit the high school dork role, with Andrew seeming more like of the everyman. So I believe while Tobey was a better Peter Parker, Andrew is a better Spider-Man. Although I do have issues with the whole promising to stay away from the dying man's daughter only to say "Promises you can't keep are the best kind"....wtf? I was a little peeved she didn't slap him in the face. I have mixed feelings about switching back to the web shooters from the comics. As while they may be iconic and a sign of the character's intellect. I've always felt Spider-Man should naturally posses the ability, but that's just nitpicking. As for the love interest, I personally have a preference for Mary-Jane over Gwen, having grown up on the 90's animated series where Gwen didn't appear. However I happen to be a fan of Emma Stone (Superbad, Zombieland, Easy A) and whoa was she great in this movie. She's got me hoping that they do not follow the death of Gwen Stacy from the comics. Rhys Ifans also does a great job of making Curt Conners sympathetic, and the Lizard villainous. Although I think the Lizard would've looked better with a snout like in the comics. All in all, solid acting, a decent story, and amazing effects. It's really a shame that the film was over-shadowed by The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises......Okay I'm just kidding those films were both better. But The Amazing Spider-Man is defiantly worth a watch. Expand
  16. Feb 15, 2013
    8
    Totally enjoyable. Funny and warm. Best thing is the new actor playing Spider-man/Peter Parker: Andrew Garfield is sensational. It feels more real than Tobey McGuire playing the part. Rest of the cast is really good too. Overall the acting is better than in the previous trilogy. Another good point is the soundtrack, really nice. Some of the special effects are amazing, others not that much. Probably the weakest point is the plot once the lizard starts his plan. It´s obvious they eliminated too many scenes and some things didn´t make sense. I suppose they didn´t want to make the movie longer than what it is (2 hours). People interested can see the deleted scenes in the dvd release. It really helps. The movie has a little touch of realism compared to the previous trilogy and it´s certainly appreciated. The upcoming second part is really promising with this director and actors. Expand
  17. Feb 6, 2013
    0
    andrew garfield does not play garfield the THIS
    0/10000000000000000000000 DONT BOTHER WATCHING
  18. Feb 5, 2013
    8
    A well acted action packed superhero film that makes this well needed a reboot a success. This new storyline proves that we will see Peter Parker's teenage years and will show a bigger development in the story than a huge jump from high school-er to photographer.
  19. Feb 3, 2013
    7
    As a fan of the original spider-man movie trilogy I was a little concerned over the concept of a re-boot, but marvel did a great job of making it feel fresh. The new actors are definitely stronger than the original which was a nice surprise. I felt the chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone was great and The action was fantastic as we've come to expect from marvel films. The problems I had with the films however were mainly with the familiarity of certain scenes to ones in the original. Obviously we have to see some scenes from the original spider-man again but there was a strong sense of deja-vu in a lot of the scenes. Also the lizard as the villain had the most cliche origin in all of comic books ever. I think this was a amazingly strong reboot and I hope the sequel improves on the fantastic foundation set by this movie! Expand
  20. Jan 31, 2013
    7
    It was far better than I expected it to be. But was it really necessary to have yet another Spider-Man origin story so soon? Andrew Garfield is far more believable as Peter Parker than Tobey Maguire was but I still feel he doesn't look the part. Martin Sheen as Ben Parker & Sally Field as Aunt May were a pleasant surprise, but I feel their faces are far too familiar to be playing such iconic characters. Emma Stone is a pretty good Gwen Stacy. But as someone else here said both Stone & Garfield are perhaps a bit to old for the roles they've been cast in, and they look it. The movie could have been better as it did take a bit too long to build up to Spider-Man's first appearance (about an hour if I remember correctly.) However the Spider-Man of this movie is just perfect. Far more true to the character from the comics. The Lizard was also pretty well portrayed and I'm one of the few who actually liked the new design, it felt more believable. Classic Lizard does look cooler but might have come off too cartooney in live action. Also, it really was a shame that Ben Parker never said his famous "with great power ...." line. I found it really curious as to why they left it out? Overall: A slight improvement on the 2002's Spider-man, but just barely. Hopefully the pacing in the next film will be a bit better without needlessly drawn out expositional scenes. Expand
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
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.