User Score
7.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1423 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. Aug 25, 2013
    0
    It's interesting that The Amazing Spider-Man and Spider-man is different. They have very different characters, but really there are not really a different. Which is boring. Almost all story, scenes, actions were the same. Boring. I thought Tobey Maguire should be only be the spider-man, and The Amazing Spider-Man. But really tired of same movies, same sequels. same characters. Movies thatIt's interesting that The Amazing Spider-Man and Spider-man is different. They have very different characters, but really there are not really a different. Which is boring. Almost all story, scenes, actions were the same. Boring. I thought Tobey Maguire should be only be the spider-man, and The Amazing Spider-Man. But really tired of same movies, same sequels. same characters. Movies that are brought from comics. I want to see completely new ideas that made by director or writer. Expand
  2. Aug 21, 2013
    4
    Well, the new Peter is charming and a very simple guy, and really really amazing. Not only girls must love him, but everyone. The other actors are great too, the movie is interesting and very good but only the first half. After that the movie went bad. It reminds me of the power rangers kids series. I think there's a lot to fix in the movie story, but it's too late now.
  3. Aug 18, 2013
    3
    Ok, I will say that the Amazing Spider-Man had some decent visuals, and a really great performance from Andrew Garfield. He was absolutely hilarious as Spider Man. Emma Stone was decent enough as Gwen Stacy. My biggest problem with the film is that just 10 years after the first Spider Man film was released, this is just a rehash of everything that happened. Not only that, but it was doneOk, I will say that the Amazing Spider-Man had some decent visuals, and a really great performance from Andrew Garfield. He was absolutely hilarious as Spider Man. Emma Stone was decent enough as Gwen Stacy. My biggest problem with the film is that just 10 years after the first Spider Man film was released, this is just a rehash of everything that happened. Not only that, but it was done worse than the original Spider Man. It felt rushed, like they were trying to cram a lot of stuff into a short window of time. It felt like they were competing with the first Spider Man, and they lost on almost every front. I didn't feel much of a connection to the villain, either. He was simply there, and for what reason? A good hero makes half of a good story, a good villain completes it. We are left with half of a good story, which isn't enough to keep this movie above water. It kept me entertained enough for the time I watched it, but afterwards, it simply left me disappointed and frustrated. One of the worst movies of 2012. Expand
  4. Aug 12, 2013
    2
    One of the most over rated movie ever this had me sleeping
    this earns a highest of 2/10
    A very bad movie
    ............................................
  5. Aug 11, 2013
    8
    I think this is a fantastic movie and in my opinion better than the other Spider-man movies. They choose the perfect actor to play Peter Parker/Spider-man. Overall a really enjoyable movie for comic book fans and fans of good movies.
  6. Aug 11, 2013
    5
    Meh, this movie seemed to take the things I liked from the original and throw them away and take the parts I didn't like and magnify them. Its an average super hero movie with a drawn out beginning. Its not bad, but I wasn't really impressed either.
  7. Aug 1, 2013
    8
    Serving two fantastic leads in Garfield and Stone as well as a great villain in Rhys Ifans as The Lizard, everything works out perfectley in this superb reboot of my favorite superhero. It's truly amazing, not just amazing, but quite spectacular!
  8. Jul 29, 2013
    7
    Well cast and shot, but I think the story was a bit lacking. The 'greatness' that Peter Parker was supposedly destined for according to Uncle Ben was nowhere to be seen. The first half, in which the protagonist is often seen without the costume, is more engaging. There were some memorable scenes, like the first time Peter talks to Gwen. This is my second favourite movie of the characterWell cast and shot, but I think the story was a bit lacking. The 'greatness' that Peter Parker was supposedly destined for according to Uncle Ben was nowhere to be seen. The first half, in which the protagonist is often seen without the costume, is more engaging. There were some memorable scenes, like the first time Peter talks to Gwen. This is my second favourite movie of the character after Spider Man 2. Expand
  9. Jul 26, 2013
    5
    Watching it again I realized this filmed was completely flawed albeit mostly entertaining. Aside from Uncle Ben, everything in this rings completely false.
  10. Jul 15, 2013
    4
    No me empeño en dañar las peliculas que a muchos les Gusta sino en valorar en este caso lo excelente que venia siendo Spider Man, no esta Peter Parker, es una nueva Historia un nuevo inicio a la clasica historia del hombre araña que no arranca muy bien.
  11. Jul 4, 2013
    9
    With science and wit dangling from its webs of storytelling, "The Amazing Spider-Man" uses Garfield and Stone's acts to soar, and leaving a wonderful impression in the end.
  12. Jun 21, 2013
    8
    Marvel never ceases to amaze me with their movies well most of them, but this particular film was well... AMAZING! First of all Andrew Garfield did a really good job playing the Spider-man character, but his Peter Parker performance wasn't as great as Toby Maguire's portrayal. Stone and Garfield don't really have chemistry in acting so that made this film awkward at times. The film alsoMarvel never ceases to amaze me with their movies well most of them, but this particular film was well... AMAZING! First of all Andrew Garfield did a really good job playing the Spider-man character, but his Peter Parker performance wasn't as great as Toby Maguire's portrayal. Stone and Garfield don't really have chemistry in acting so that made this film awkward at times. The film also told a really good story and separated itself from the first Spider-man in 2002. Although some of the plot points are similar, the villain is different and this movie actually shows Peter's parents rather than not show them at all. Also, when this movie came out on DVD it shows many of the deleted scenes that would have been great character development for Doctor Curtis Connors (The Lizard) who despite didn't have the greatest development did a really good job portraying The Lizard. Overall this movie was a really good one and I highly recommend it.
    Overall: 8.5/10
    Expand
  13. Jun 19, 2013
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A well chosen cast, great special effects and looks more like the comics. This movie is simply awesome, even if it's not as fresh as Sam Raimi's trilogy. Expand
  14. Jun 17, 2013
    9
    This may not be the best Spider-Man film, but its an excellent reboot. The cast is definetely one of the best. The movie kills it with action, emotion and origin. It's a retelling of Spider-Man but in a way that has secrets.
    I give TASM a 9/10
  15. Jun 7, 2013
    6
    With the Sam Raimi directed trilogy still fresh in our minds it is impossible not to make comparisons when watching this latest reboot of the franchise, particularly since the movies opening forty-five minutes again takes us through Spiderman’s origin story. Most viewers will be already be familiar with this story and so it is questionable whether so much time needed to be spent on it butWith the Sam Raimi directed trilogy still fresh in our minds it is impossible not to make comparisons when watching this latest reboot of the franchise, particularly since the movies opening forty-five minutes again takes us through Spiderman’s origin story. Most viewers will be already be familiar with this story and so it is questionable whether so much time needed to be spent on it but it still makes for watchable cinema.

    From then on the movie goes in its own direction and in some ways The Amazing Spiderman is an improvement over its predecessor. Being released ten years after the first of the previous trilogy the special effects and CGI are obviously a big improvement with Spiderman himself moving far more convincingly and The Lizard looking very realistic. Emma Stone, as Gwen Stacy, is also far more likable than Kirsten Dunst’s Mary Jane Watson while Andrew Garfield is close to matching Toby Maguire in the lead role. The plot involving Peter Parkers parents also provides a little more depth to the overall plot of the movie and its future sequels.

    On the down side this reboot, while having its moments, was not quite as funny as Raimi’s origin story and seeing the Webbed Crusader on screen does not have quite the same impact it once had. This is certainly a decent start to this new franchise however and I am hopeful it will deliver more in the future.
    Expand
  16. May 30, 2013
    10
    I don't understand why anyone would hate this movie. I actually like that its a reboot because its a fresh new start. At first I didn't like the new costume but now its growing on me. The fighting sequences were really good and so was the story. I liked Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone as Spider-Man and Gwen Stacy. I kinda wished the movie had a second villain like Scorpion. Its pretty muchI don't understand why anyone would hate this movie. I actually like that its a reboot because its a fresh new start. At first I didn't like the new costume but now its growing on me. The fighting sequences were really good and so was the story. I liked Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone as Spider-Man and Gwen Stacy. I kinda wished the movie had a second villain like Scorpion. Its pretty much the Batman Begins of Spider-Man movies. Expand
  17. May 28, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If I were to sum up how I feel about this movie, I would say: mahogana. That is a bizarre expression, but that what this film is to me: Bizarre. There was of course A lot of talk about why a reboot to a series no even that old enough to deserve a reboot. The reason why was because Fox was about to lose the license to the series, and so they needed to kick Raimi out of the project, he was working on the 4th one but it would take too long for him to finish. So in the end we get a new spider man, new director, and brand new cast. With all of that stuff being hurled at us, can I as a viewer withstand it? Almost. I almost can withstand all the new stuff, but I can't stand some of the decisions they made though. The actor they got was pretty good to play Peter, but as Spider man he's either too dark or too even for spider man. The villain is almost a contender for most disappointing villain in an actually decent superhero movie, he's so boring, and is just a ridiculous villain. I think his abilities are unclear, as in he can regenerate at an incredible rate is rather unexplained. Lizards don't grow their limbs back immediately, it takes quite a while. His plot makes no sense, make the whole city lizards, why? What good would come out of doing that? One of the most important scenes in the spider man universe is done horribly in this picture, the death of peter's uncle. The saying is: with great power comes great responsibility, but that doesn't matter because his uncle is an idiot for trying to wrestle away a gun from a younger thug. The whole T.V mentality of this is really infuriating because now we have to wait until the next one because filmmakers discovered that they don't have to tell a story in one film, but rather have it spread to multiple films. I guess I can say I don't hate this film, but I should highlight that I don't like it. Expand
  18. May 13, 2013
    6
    Of course this film has to measure with the older Spider-Man Films.I really like Kirsten Dunst but Emma Stone is a better actor and Andrew Garfield is very sympathetic to me and a thousand times better than Tobey Maguire.
    I cannot say that i didn`t enjoy the film.The actors are good and i like the action sequences.Sometimes there are some logical mistakes and the characters are not always
    Of course this film has to measure with the older Spider-Man Films.I really like Kirsten Dunst but Emma Stone is a better actor and Andrew Garfield is very sympathetic to me and a thousand times better than Tobey Maguire.
    I cannot say that i didn`t enjoy the film.The actors are good and i like the action sequences.Sometimes there are some logical mistakes and the characters are not always smart but it was nothing what was destroying my joy.
    The bad guy is also not the best,Very simple structured for some intelligent guy as he is but ist makes the movie not worst but also not better.
    All in all a film that you can watch when you want a good action movie which entertains you for 2 hours when you don`t wont to use your brain to much.
    Expand
  19. May 11, 2013
    8
    It is too easy to compare Marc Webb's Amazing Spider-Man to Raimi's first effort, primarily because for the first half at least they are the same film, or are at least both films telling the same story. Pages and pages have been written on the reboot debate so I won't add to them only to say that I think I enjoyed the updated take on the origin story more. The conspiracy behind Peter'sIt is too easy to compare Marc Webb's Amazing Spider-Man to Raimi's first effort, primarily because for the first half at least they are the same film, or are at least both films telling the same story. Pages and pages have been written on the reboot debate so I won't add to them only to say that I think I enjoyed the updated take on the origin story more. The conspiracy behind Peter's parents deaths adds some complexity to the story and Peter's first experience of Spider-Man's abilities is made into an amusing sequence. Credit for that must go to Andrew Garfield, who improves on Maguire's take on Parker no end, proving that Peter can be geeky without being too pathetic. Perhaps it was setting the story in high school, with the sympathies that come with being different in that environment, that makes Garfield's Peter more likeable.

    Once the origin of Spider-Man is complete, the film moves through the gears and the budding romance and chemistry between Peter and Gwen is sincere and likeable. With a supporting cast including veterans Martin Sheen and Sally Field, there is no shortage of strong performances.

    The film is a bit heavy handed with it's vigilante right or wrong mantra and I was hugely disappointed with Rhys Ifan's Lizard. Ifan's performance as Connor's is decent enough but for me visually the Lizard didn't fit closely enough with the character's traditional appearance. Maybe it was an attempt to make the character realistic in a Christopher Nolan manner but rather than look like a lizard (with a lizards head) he looks like a generic green monster that could appear in any film.

    An enjoyable, if unnecessary, return to Spider-Man's roots with a fresh bunch of characters that is worth a watch even if just for a comparison with the original trilogy.
    Expand
  20. Apr 25, 2013
    8
    It is much like the 2002 version, the plot and relatively good action scenes Guides, reasonable performances but q makes the 2002 version better and charisma tobey maguarey, which has adrew garfield
  21. Apr 24, 2013
    9
    This reboot of the Spider-Man franchise delivers with a strong performance by Andrew Garfield as the lead character, and big names in some of the other supporting roles. Acting great Martin Sheen, host of the Breakthroughs with Martin Sheen show, gives a strong performance as usual, in the role of Uncle Ben. Denis Leary, better known as a comedian than an actor, also shines as the fatherThis reboot of the Spider-Man franchise delivers with a strong performance by Andrew Garfield as the lead character, and big names in some of the other supporting roles. Acting great Martin Sheen, host of the Breakthroughs with Martin Sheen show, gives a strong performance as usual, in the role of Uncle Ben. Denis Leary, better known as a comedian than an actor, also shines as the father of Peter Parker’s love interest.

    It’s great to see well-established actors and thespians, like Sheen and Sally Field, who plays Aunt May, share the screen with up-and-coming actors like Garfield and Emma Stone, who plays Gwen Stacy. The young stars hold their own with these heavyweights, and show that they belong. Although Sheen does not appear in as many movies these days as he did in his heyday, he shows the talent that has helped him remain in show business since the early 1960s. These days, Sheen hosts the Breakthroughs Martin Sheen show, and also appeared in a movie directed by his son Emilio Estevez called “The Way.”

    The Martin Sheen Breakthroughs show examines positive and intriguing stories across American society. It airs on public television stations across the nation, including some PBS-affiliated stations. The Martin Sheen PBS program (www.breakthroughsptv.com) looks at medical subjects, environmental topics, business stories and more. The Martin Sheen public television program looks at education stories as well.

    Hopefully, the producers and director of the sequel to this entertaining and enjoyable movie can bring back all the principal actors and actresses for the sequel.
    Expand
  22. 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.
  23. 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 portrayingI 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
  24. 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.
  25. 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 StoneThis 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
  26. 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.
  27. 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 notThe 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
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
    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
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.