User Score
7.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1360 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 3, 2012
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I'd say this movie is equivalent to Spiderman 3. I hated all the conspiracy's in it. Garfield was a joke of a Parker, but Emma Stone played an... Amazing Gwen Stacey. Expand
  2. Aug 3, 2012
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Tis movie isn't amazing but it is one of the best of the spiderman movies. there are some memorable moments but thre are some ridiculous scenes, like the scene with the construction workers giving spiderman a lift. the cgi wasn't the best but it was still good. The movie dragged a little and the lizard shared similarities to the 2002 Spidermans Green Goblin in an overall score.
    Story-7
    Cast-8
    Sound-8
    Animation-6
    total-8/10
    Great
    Expand
  3. Aug 2, 2012
    6
    A good reboot of the Spider-Man franchise, but I think all of this should have happened in 2003. The boring drama scenes are still the same old thing from the original.
  4. Aug 2, 2012
    10
    Best Spider-Man yet. The younger casting of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone paid off big time! They were much more believable in their roles than the Spider-Man franchise has ever given us. Though the villain was not that exciting, this is the first superhero movie that I've ever seen that I honestly want to see again. Usually the genre is a little boring to me, but this movie is top-notch.
  5. Aug 1, 2012
    9
    I watched this recently, and I think 80% of the time the movie was catching your eye, so you don't really ever get bored, also funny sometimes. (Sometimes, not a lot)
  6. Aug 1, 2012
    9
    I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Compared to the "other" first movie, I'd say I enjoyed them both equally, yet in different areas and aspects. They both had elements apart from each other that I recognized growing up and this one successfully updating the story for the times. My version of Spider-Man was the intelligent, science wiz that was not necessarily popular, yet wasn't an outcast either portrayed in this version. Compared to the other movie, I liked how they had Peter develop his own mechanism for dispensing the webbing which I was fond of as a kid, his more talkative nature while he's in his Spider-Man persona which in turn, funny as it sounds, makes him feel more human while in the suit. I loved the chemistry between Peter and Gwen and in my opinion, accurately projects that sorta young love, filled with awkward moments and uncomfortable eye contact that anyone can relate to when starting a new relationship with someone. The antagonist was no slouch, and everyone's performance were well done from top to bottom. Expand
  7. Aug 1, 2012
    1
    I was skeptical as much as many people when I heard that Colombia Pictures was rebooting a franchise that was no more than a decade old. Nonetheless, I went in with an open-mind and judged this film from the perspective as both a reboot and on it's own merits. All I can say is this movie is amazing...amazingly underwhelming. That is not to say this movie is not without it's positives. The cast is generally well-rounded (Andrew Garfield really pours his soul into the role), the chemistry between the two romantic leads is very solid, and the action is well-choreographed, with tight cinematography to boost. The core issue with this movie is lies within the script and execution. One opportunity that this reboot sorely missed is the movie doesn't take the chance to stick closer to the comic book source material. Not only does it deviate more from the source material than the Raimi trilogy but the filmmakers go for a Nolan-Batman-esque dark tone by making Peter Parker an emotionally damaged teenager. This feels completely out of place since Spider-Man is supposed to be comical and wisecracking. Parker sometimes does wisecracks but it is so sporadic that it only ends up making his character confusing. Spider-Man is not Batman, the writers tried to put elements into a character that simply don't fit. Another huge misstep was in the villain plot, which features The Lizard. Not only is the motivations of the character confusing and seem to change on the fly, but he also looks like a combination between Killer Croc and a Goomba. Halfway through it becomes obvious that The Lizard is simply another Norman Osbourne/Green Goblin villain except not nearly done as well. Plus the script is so full of plot conveniences and half-baked elements that it truly feels like this script was subjected to many rewrites. Seeing this film, it seemed obvious that the filmmakers were trying to combine the dark brooding tone of the Nolan Batman franchise along with the high-concept sci-fi elements of the Avengers franchise and none of them seem to mesh nor are they executed with the same quality as those film's. I predict that this film is going to be the 'Superman Returns' of the Spider-Man series, a complete misfire of a reboot that fails to bring any fresh momentum to the franchise. This is definitely the weakest Spider-Man movie, even weaker than 'Spider-Man 3' (I never thought that could be possible). Expand
  8. Jul 31, 2012
    8
    Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, and everyone else in the cast is fantastic. The special effects are some of the best ever. What is really amazing though is that the story of Peter Parker becoming Spider-Man is just as fresh and emotional as the first time it was told 50 years ago. (and the last time we saw it less than 10 years ago.)
  9. Jul 30, 2012
    3
    I am really not "getting" all the positive reviews this movie is getting, seems very formulaic to me, was too long by quite a bit. Spidy didn't seem nerdy enough to me as Peter Parker. I thought the whole becoming spiderman sequence from bite to finish was better in the first film. I thought Spideys spinning and swinging and Spiderman stuff was better in Spidey one. There was little if anything to recommend this over the first film, character development, villain, action all seemed to be worse to me.

    I am not one who says the movie has to be a slave to the original comic, but other than Gwen Stacy v. MJ as the original girlfreind the first movie seemed to follow the early comics better, and it did it so well that where the 2nd strayed it bugged me. The new one also seemed like a 60s ish story with a 20xx vibe rather than the nostalgic consistency of the first one.

    Wasn't expcting all that much, was still disappointed.
    Expand
  10. Jul 30, 2012
    9
    I love Spiderman movies ever since 2007, this should be on sales now! The movie is more than 2 hours of entertainment, making me impressed of the whole story.
  11. Jul 29, 2012
    5
    I wasn't really interested to see this movie, even though the trailer looked pretty cool. My friends tell me that this wasn't so good, so I never bothered. Until my dad wanted to see it with me, so I broke down and watched. Its actually better than I thought, but its not as great as I hoped it will be. After the disappointment of Spiderman 3, I was hoping the re-boot's will make a dark and serious Spiderman movie, but this one was lil too silly. I will give credit, the fight scenes, special effects, and the beginning of the story took it slow and explained more than the original. I also like that they used Gwen Stacy instead of Mary-Jane Watson, this follows more to the comics. However, the problem starts when Peter Parker becomes Spiderman. I don't understand why he has to use a device to shoot webs, I wish they use the same idea from the original when the webs come out of his wrist. Another thing...is it me, or is Spiderman more goofier in this one? He chuckles and acts like a child the whole time while wearing the suit, kinda like how Dark Suit Spiderman did in Spiderman 3. As for the new actor of Peter Parker / Spiderman, he was okay. He's likable and funny, but for some reason I just think Tobey Macguire was mostly memorable and more mature. I kinda think new Spiderman is too exposing, he reveals his true identity 4 times....not that much of a private superhero. The Lizard, he was pretty good. I like the character and the CG of the mutated monster looked pretty good. So my thoughts in this movie are kinda mixed, I like the movie but I don't find it as great as I wish it can be. I'm still glad I finally got to see it, and maybe change my mind if I see it again and like it. Expand
  12. Jul 28, 2012
    4
    This movie was a lot worse than the first 3. Andrew Garfield was not a good enough nerd to be peter parker, the whole story behind lizard was very confusing, and overall, this movie was a very mediocre superhero movie reboot.
  13. Jul 28, 2012
    10
    I love marvel comics and specially the superheroes. This movie is great. It's my favorite movie. I recommend it to the people who like action and some comedy. It is a fantastic movie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  14. Jul 27, 2012
    5
    In the year of tentpole epic superhero films, The Amazing Spider-Man doesn't really stand out. After only five years after the last installment, the disapointing Spider-Man 3, the series has been rebooted for audiences once again. For those new to the series, this would be a nice way of introducing them to the web slinging superhero. But for those of us old enough to remember the original, it may come off as predictable. The more light-hearted tone of the original is lost here (there are moments of humor, but it is overall, more serious and dark) and, while the effects have improved and are worth checking out here, the storytelling is pretty standard. There are engaging performances from Garfield (I particularly liked his bringing out of the well-known hero), Stone, and Ifans, but it doesn't really bring anything else new to the series. In a year of big tentpole super-hero films like The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises, The Amazing Spider-Man doesn't really live up to it's title. That little pun probably has probably been used by anyone who didn't really like the film either in their reviews. Expand
  15. Jul 27, 2012
    6
    The idea of a reboot seemed dumb to me, it was too soon, but I decided to ignore that and hope for the best and see this. The problem is that, it doesn't change that much the original story, I was expecting a very different perspective of Peter's story, instead we get basically the same things repeated all over again but with a quicker pace, and like a fan made version of its origins. After it finishes introducing Spider-Man the movie starts to get better, but it doesn't leave a mark on you. Also, the Lizard's face felt it needed much more. Oh and what also annoyed me the most, was the tacked on jokes, the jokes felt very scripted, they didn't come out naturally. Is not bad to remake a movie, but please do a change to it, if you are doing it so soon! Batman Begins was a reboot and a very different one at that. Expand
  16. Jul 26, 2012
    4
    FIrst ask yourself if you were satisfied with Sam Raimi\'s Spiderman Trilogy. If the answer is yes, more than likely you will find this remake completely unnecssesary. If it\'s no, you might be in luck but keep in mind this Spiderman makes little to no attempt to introduce anything new or original in terms of plot. This movie is also loaded with plotholes and multiple events that stretch whatever sense of realism this spiderman brought to the table. Good news is Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield are great! Bad news is pretty much everything else, in that this spiderman offers absolutely nothing new or interesting to the superhero. Expand
  17. Jul 26, 2012
    6
    Its been a mere decade since Sam Raimi helmed Tobey Maguire (as twenty-something Peter Parker) and company together to set the modern standard for the webslinging hero. As the first two films experienced both commerical and critical success, it's understandable as to why the latest project, The Amazing Spider-Man may strike some fans as being "too soon." But, such popular wisdom didn't halt the 500 Days of Summer director Marc Webb from attempting to prove the nay seyers wrong. Challenged with the prospect of following 2002's Spiderman, this Spidey-film, in production, suffered from the sole disadvantage of being a subsequent act: avoiding semblance. Being a remake, however, involves at least some similarity. In any regard, the film succeeds in distinguishing itself largely due to the new Peter Parker, Andrew Garfield. Known for his spotlighted performance in The Social Network, Garfield assumes a modernized persona in 'Spider-Man.' He, though playing a bit older of a teenager than did Maguire in his debut, is instantly accepted in his role, having a fresh-faced innocence framed with anxious tics, angst, wry humor, and an unpretentiously down-played charisma that realistically reflects towards today's youth. Moreover, unlike the hackneyed "nerdy" image Maguire attained, Garfield is a punkish, skateboarding, internet-surfing, texting teen who just feels right; factor in the tall, lengthy stature that fills the red and blue arachnid suit which draws a far closer semblance to the comics than does Maguire's diminutive clumsiness. Peter Parker, then, is an abounding improvement; we even get to see him as a child in the Prologue. His love interest, the newly monikered Gwen Stacy--no more scarlet-headed Mary Jane--played by the ultra-talented Emma Stone is a beachy, yet intelligent blonde, all emo-short skirts, high boots and blimpingly gazing eyes underscored with thick-painted eyeliner; she is terrific and delightfully lighter and more expressive in character than the cold, equivocally taciturn Mary Jane of previous films. The two together, though, don't always stick like one would want them to, as the pathos and jokes don't land consistently, but individually they work wonders. When a mid-plot twist reveals Gwen's father (Denis Leary) is head honcho of the police force, (Leary miserably nods along) the divided love affair between the two crossed teenagers assumes more of the same division as between Peter and Mary Jane, and ups the ante in cohesive sentiment. As for Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Uncle Ben and Aunt May, they are near perfect castings but neither is used nearly enough. And, the one-armed scientist-reptile-symbiote, Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) the screenplay's poor excuse of a villain, is a character no more an antagonist than Peter Parker for a chunk of the film. He is brought to his monstrous transgressions by one Dr. Ratha, who demands that Connors create an antidote for an ailing company superior. While The Amazing Spider-Man does devote some attention to character revamping, namely Peter Parker and the fledgling Gwen Stacy, as well as capturing some subtle nuances from the comics, it also fails to web its components together, often revisiting the same plot points of its predecessor. Though forgiving the latter is sensible, the former is impeachable. What we're talking about: plot contrivances, continuity errors, gaping lapses in logic, and embarrassing coincidences. For one, not nearly enough is said about Peter's parents, particularly his father. Early on, Peter is searching the web (why is a teenage prodigy using Bing?) and it is there he whimsically finds an article of his father with Connors. Others include: what happened to Uncle Ben's murderer? What happened to Dr. Ratha after he was seen in his vehicle on the Williamsburg bridge? Why are no photos taken of the 8-foot tall reptile rampaging through cars like magots? Why are a swarm of lizards walking on a web of Spiderman's in the sewer? Who writes "Property of" on anything? Why do crane operators work during evacuations? If Dr. Connors' reptile-transforming serum was ephemeral, and thereby needed to be injected every four hours or so, why would he expose the entire New York population to it?; the effects would be short-lived. And, the last I will mention, why is Denis Leary the only police officer on the roof of the building in the finale, when hundreds of other SWAT personnel are meandering on the street, watching the hero and villain fight? It's these contrivances and more that mar all that 'Spider-man' offers; director Marc Webb can only feint the mishaps with unfulfilled emotive closeups that merely break up the pervasive silliness for a short time, but such aren't ever forgotten. By the looks of it, the making of 'Spider-man' was lost right from the boardroom; oh, there it is, WHOP! It's an icky mess to clean up. Expand
  18. Jul 25, 2012
    9
    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 comics unlike before.
  19. Jul 25, 2012
    6
    A LITTLE HARD TO BE IMPRESSED BY A LACK OF RE-IMAGINATION. I saw this with low expectations, but, like many, wanted to see what
    they had done differently from Sam Raimi's trilogy. I honestly believe
    it would have been great to see the story continued, rather than
    restarted and barely re-imagined. The pacing was painfully slow, and
    took way too much time to gain momentum with a story
    that was too
    bubble-gum pop to be taken seriously, and with about as much substance
    as watching an episode of Pretty Little Liars. The chemistry between
    Andrew Garfield and Emma stone was a high point, though at times Peter
    seemed a little too twitchy, and a little annoying when in costume. The
    second half of the film was much more enjoyable after being bored by
    the first, with some nice special effects. Unfortunately the film
    score, which should have complimented the screen action, lacked. I did
    however enjoy one of the last scenes with the blue snow and felt that
    the music in that scene was perfect for a great looking shot. All in
    all I wouldn't spend over $10 to watch this, and with the lack of
    action wouldn't bother with 3D but will probably watch it again when it
    comes out on DVD.
    Expand
  20. Jul 25, 2012
    9
    The best Spiderman film to date, with a dream cast (Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone and Martin Sheen in particular) a compelling, to-the-point origin story, a fun soundtrack and some awesome fight scenes. While it does follow the same cues as Raimi's original Spiderman movie, that's simply because it's Spiderman's origin, it draws from the same comic book that Raimi's film drew from, so similarities are bound to occur. But overall, I believe this film far outdoes Raimi's Spiderman, the characters in this Spiderman are just so...I guess...loveable :/ And let's face it, the lack of Tobey Maguire makes would make any series reboot a winner, there's something about that guy's acting that stirs about the urge in me to lamp him one, quite an issue when I only ever see him on expensive, fragile screens.
    It does annoy me that they went with the age old, "Cop fights superhero because he doesn't want him taking the law into his own hands" bullsh!t we've seen a million times before, but I do like the way they tie that off towards the end.
    Expand
  21. Jul 25, 2012
    5
    The word that summarize this movie is "pointless".
    It's a souless script that adds absolutely nothing to the "first" version of Raimi.
    Script is poor and plot is weak at best. It seems like the director just wanted to lay out some ground for future films. It's like following a checklist to introduce spider-man to a new audience. Waste of time, not entertaining at all. And if you hope for
    some good action you're out of luck too. Fighting scenes are few and far in between Expand
  22. Jul 24, 2012
    5
    If your a Spidey fan there were some things to like in this reboot. Unfortunately being released so soon after Raimi's version they will always be compared. I was looking forward to seeing a little more of Parker's back story with his parents, but that plot line fell way short in my book and did little that the original did not. I also found the Uncle Ben story line far less satisfying in this version. I did enjoy the Stacy character quite a bit, although again I liked the chemistry between Parker and Watson from the original quite a bit better. The Lizard as the villain was one area that I would consider an improvement on the first. Also the visuals where Spidey are concerned I found to be compelling when put up against the first. Overall not enough to warrant a reboot in my estimation. Expand
  23. Jul 24, 2012
    8
    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 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
  24. Jul 23, 2012
    1
    If you like the marvel universe and the comics, you will really loose faith in humanity.
    This is more a teenager movie than a spiderman movie. Spidey looks like an unsure crying teenager who may have look too many twiligh movies. In fact it could have been any "superhero" in this movie. The actor role is not good at all except for peter's girl friend. The Artistic direction seems to have
    gone out of budget and imagination and 3D effect are very unequal. The filming technics are poor, it's a pain to wash like some over used and missplaced focus effect. Even Spiderman 3 that was really bad, was above this in term of realisation. The final cut could have been amputed of 30 minutes to add some dynamic to the movie, some scenes are really long for nothing.
    By reference to the comics, the main character should be quick and intelligent, and this spidey is nothing of that, somtimes his reactions are so ridculous, you just want to slap him, put him in his costume and tell "so now what ? amaze me ... amazing spiderman" ... and certainly he would just cry.
    So in fact it's more a love/teen movie than a super hero movie, they could have replaced spidey be any hero/emo guy it whould have been the same. In term of character respect it's one of the worst marvel movie.
    Expand
  25. Jul 23, 2012
    6
    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
  26. Jul 23, 2012
    0
    No script? No ideas? No creativity? Let's make Twilight in spandex and ram it down their throats! Peter Parker is an awkward science geek? Screw it, let's make him a sullen, brooding emo dick, take his shirt off, and rope in the broads. As much of a train wreck as John Carter is, at least it's not a cynical train wreck. This is: a disgusting, factory-assembled, boardroom-arbitrated, hopelessly written **** It's so cynical and calculating in the way it machinates every scene for maximum profit that it makes you physically sick. Marc Webb, Vanderbilt, Sargent, Kloves, all the hacks involved, and everyone at Sony should go straight to movie jail for this abomination. I still can't figure out what the Lizard was trying to accomplish. He's so badly written and unthreatening, you half expect him to yell "Switch to Geico or die, Spiderman!" Expand
  27. Jul 23, 2012
    8
    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
  28. Jul 23, 2012
    7
    Most of the negative reviews on here are really uninformed reviews. While this movie is titled "The Amazing Spider-man;" this movie seemed more like a strange mixture of both series "The Amazing Spiderman" and "Ultimate Spiderman." Most people are familiar with "The Amazing Spiderman" series because it's been printed since the 1960s. So if things seem unfamiliar about this movie it's because the writers picked out elements from ultimate spiderman. I personally didn't like the fact that they mixed the two comic series together, because I was expecting there source material to be the comic they named it after not two different comic series.

    This movie is actually really good I wouldn't say it's completely superior to the first three movies but it does excel in several places where the first three movies didn't. First of all the cast is far superior in my opinion. While the first three movies had great actors it just didn't seem like they were that into the making the movie and it really showed in their performances , not to mention there were some really strange casting decisions ( I.E. Eddie Brock/ Venom being play by the guy from that 70s show).

    Secondly the plot is far more comic accurate than most probably give it credit for. The villain actually has amotives and goals he wants to achieve, and they're well thought out. What I mean is that the lizard man initially is running his experiments to find a way to genetically engineer genes into people so they can grow back limbs and stuff like that, but of course something horribly wrong happens and he becomes a monster; however, as the monster he feels real power and thinks humans are weak overall. These thoughts lead him to trying to figure out a way to either eliminate or modify humans. The green goblin in the first movie just did everything because he was crazy; it never really feel like he had any motives besides I want to kill people for the heck of it. What I hated about the first trilogy is that at the end of every movie they killed off the main villains. I know this sounds nit picky but it almost seemed like they did it just because it was convenient. Instead of placing one scene at the end of the movie where it shows norman osbourne being locked up in a prison or something like that they just killed him off so they never had to mention him again in the next two movies.

    Thirdly the character development is phenomenal and the talent really gets the heart and soul of the characters spot on.

    The main negative thing about this movie is occasionally it feels like it drags on and this is in part of the character development. There are a lot of tear jerking scenes in this movie that just don't really feel necessary. These scenes are in there to make you feel more invested in the characters but they could have accomplished this by doing scenes that were more entertaining in my opinion.
    Another thing where this movie fails is that it feels less fun than the original 3. If there is anything the first 3 did right is that it didn't take itself serious at all really and that's why they were pretty entertaining even pretty bad at the same time. The most nit picky thing I didn't like about this movie is that the physics were really ridiculous, for example there is one scene where he throws a football at normal speed and it hits and bends the goal post; that's physically IMPOSSIBLE the only way he could accomplish that is if the football was first indestructible and then he threw it at like 500 mph.

    Overall this isn't the best comic movie I've seen but it definitely isn't the worst. The actors deliver believable great performances and the story is very true to the comics. Definitely give it a try at least.
    Expand
  29. Jul 23, 2012
    10
    This movie had little bit of everything. I found Garfield's Peter Parker very relatable. The chemistry between him and Stone's Gwen Stacy was much better than McGuire's Peter and Durst's MJ in Raimi's trilogy.
  30. Jul 22, 2012
    7
    Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone had a lot of convincing to do, and after the end of The Amazing Spider-Man I was convinced. I feel like the Spider-Man universe is now a far more realistic one. This movie has all the great action you would expect with an interesting storyline and villain. If you've been waiting for a cooler Spider-Man, this is your move. Let's just hope the special effects and production values are a little more stellar for the next film. Collapse
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.