User Score
7.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1404 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. Jul 9, 2012
    10
    This Movie IS Indeed...AMAZING!Best Spider-man Movie YET!Never Got Boring,Kept Me Entertained From Beginning To End.Spidey was Wise Cracking And Built His own web Shooter As In The Comics.The Scene Were Uncle Ben Gets Shot Mad me Shed A Tear.
  2. Jul 9, 2012
    10
    I really enjoyed this movie. In fact I liked it much better than the Raimi trilogy, though I can't help but think that its just because of my age that I identify more with Andrew Garfield's character. Many people agree that the marketing for this movie impacted their enjoyment of the film. But I can tell that everyone involved really gave their all (Fantastic acting and directing), so thatI really enjoyed this movie. In fact I liked it much better than the Raimi trilogy, though I can't help but think that its just because of my age that I identify more with Andrew Garfield's character. Many people agree that the marketing for this movie impacted their enjoyment of the film. But I can tell that everyone involved really gave their all (Fantastic acting and directing), so that isn't the movies fault. Expand
  3. Jul 9, 2012
    7
    I enjoyed the first Raimi Spider-Man film (and hated the second one). At the time, with nothing to really compare them to, I thought Tobey and Dunst were solid enough, but after seeing The Amazing Spider-Man, I realize that there was real chemistry lacking between the original's leads. Garfield is much better than Tobey - Tobey's unaffected, bored look worked in The Cider House Rules,I enjoyed the first Raimi Spider-Man film (and hated the second one). At the time, with nothing to really compare them to, I thought Tobey and Dunst were solid enough, but after seeing The Amazing Spider-Man, I realize that there was real chemistry lacking between the original's leads. Garfield is much better than Tobey - Tobey's unaffected, bored look worked in The Cider House Rules, but not as Peter Parker. I buy Garfield much more as a high school kid, and Emma Stone is so much more dynamic than Dunst (who excels in such art house flicks as The Virgin Suicides and Melancholia - but not in the popcorn / comic flick realm). Even the antagonist is much more believable and even sympathetic in the right ways. All-around, I think this is the best big screen version of Spidey. No, it's nothing like the Batman Begins reinvention of that franchise, but it's still superior fare. Expand
  4. Jul 9, 2012
    8
    Finally! We can watch the spiderman that appear in the comic. I belive that in this character the reboot is necesary, because much things in the Raimi's saga don't be part of the character, but now in The Amazing Spiderman Marc Webb intent do something better, and the film may not be the best (is the second), but is funny. The story have a fast development. The performances of AndrewFinally! We can watch the spiderman that appear in the comic. I belive that in this character the reboot is necesary, because much things in the Raimi's saga don't be part of the character, but now in The Amazing Spiderman Marc Webb intent do something better, and the film may not be the best (is the second), but is funny. The story have a fast development. The performances of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are correct. The effects are amazing. The problems are the next: The Lizard, looks some weird, some important characters (yes the aunt may) appear on a background. Is a good reboot, I think that is better than the Avengers. I wanna watch the second part. Expand
  5. Jul 9, 2012
    10
    After seeing this I wondered why Spiderman was NEVER this good! This movie is FANTASTIC!! It is the BEST Spiderman movie yet!! I love this new direction for Spiderman its more interesting...more captivating...so cinematic! This is one of my favorite movies for numerous reasons. This movie is most true to the comics. Spiderman is more flexible and agile than ever before. He has a real senseAfter seeing this I wondered why Spiderman was NEVER this good! This movie is FANTASTIC!! It is the BEST Spiderman movie yet!! I love this new direction for Spiderman its more interesting...more captivating...so cinematic! This is one of my favorite movies for numerous reasons. This movie is most true to the comics. Spiderman is more flexible and agile than ever before. He has a real sense of humor, and captures the hurt from loosing his Uncle and the nerdy teen that we associate with Spiderman perfectly. The special effects top notch and the fight scene are choreographed better than Spiderman 1,2,and 3. They showcase both Spiderman and The Lizzard's abilities perfectly! See this movie if you havent! If tickets werent so expensive now a days I would see this twice!!! Expand
  6. Jul 9, 2012
    8
    I was a little on edge about this Spider-Man reboot because I grew up watching Sam Raimi
  7. Jul 9, 2012
    7
    İf u ask me why 7 but not 10 i can state that main problem is Connors. He is good, i mean lizard is cool. but it is like a weaker copy of hulk. Even when it acts and fights. oh the other hand both avengers and reboot spider man's budget is 220 million. but look at the difference, Avengers action scene's are more incredible and lasts at least 30 minutes more than spider man. and castİf u ask me why 7 but not 10 i can state that main problem is Connors. He is good, i mean lizard is cool. but it is like a weaker copy of hulk. Even when it acts and fights. oh the other hand both avengers and reboot spider man's budget is 220 million. but look at the difference, Avengers action scene's are more incredible and lasts at least 30 minutes more than spider man. and cast is perfect, then for what producers spent 220 million. and where is the j,j? spider-man without his raging boss doesnt seem warm, as a movie it is good and watchable, some lacks of screenplay wounded and hardly walking spider at the end fight even doesnt feel his injuries. my points are 7-marc webb 9-andrew garfield 9 emma stone 6-screenplay 8-visual effects 10- stan lee's cameo:) Expand
  8. Jul 9, 2012
    8
    this one is much better than spiderman 3. some really god actions. the scope for 3D however seems restricted. Andrew Garfield looks good in the spider-man outfit. the "web spinner" machine in that watch thing was so cool. i would recommend every spidey lover to watch it.....
  9. Jul 9, 2012
    9
    Andrew Garfield is an emerging young actor that will be in the spotlight for years to come. He did great in this movie, and will do great in the following two as a part of this trilogy. In addition, we are privileged to see great performances by the other actors in this film. I personally enjoyed seeing Martin Sheen in this film, despite only being present for a portion of it. Emma StoneAndrew Garfield is an emerging young actor that will be in the spotlight for years to come. He did great in this movie, and will do great in the following two as a part of this trilogy. In addition, we are privileged to see great performances by the other actors in this film. I personally enjoyed seeing Martin Sheen in this film, despite only being present for a portion of it. Emma Stone is bold and straightforward in her technique of this movie. She is a great young woman that will go far as well. Compared to the, "Spider-Man," trilogy with Tobey Maguire a decade ago, this is so much better and will be rewarded for that distinction. As I said before, the acting, along with the script, cinematography, story line, and special effects are absolutely phenomenal. Even the little things that make a film good are noticeable, such as the colors, lighting, and set dimensions.

    "With great power comes great responsibility," as it is often said, and this new trilogy will be making the mold for how Spider-Man is seen. Hopefully the following films match this and are better. I believe this will end up happening.
    Expand
  10. Jul 8, 2012
    8
    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 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
    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 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
  11. Jul 8, 2012
    6
    I was very disappointed by this film. It seems like the writers took a copy of the Toby McGuire Spiderman script, broke it down scene-by-scene and said "We can top that." Each scene felt as though it was over the top--they made everything in the story personally connected to Parker/Spiderman. I felt as though I was watching a Spiderman film geared toward teenage girls (seriously? handsomeI was very disappointed by this film. It seems like the writers took a copy of the Toby McGuire Spiderman script, broke it down scene-by-scene and said "We can top that." Each scene felt as though it was over the top--they made everything in the story personally connected to Parker/Spiderman. I felt as though I was watching a Spiderman film geared toward teenage girls (seriously? handsome skateboarding rebel Peter Parker?). Add in awkward and abrupt cuts, and sarcasm in serious moments, viewers just don't know when it is appropriate to laugh or cry.

    Having said that, I enjoyed the villain Lizard much more than the Green Goblin, and the CGI throughout the movie was excellent. My favorite scene was the first person view during Spiderman's first web-slinging.

    If you have seen the original with McGuire and are looking for more than a cheesy romance and exciting web-slinging combat, I would recommend waiting for a less expensive view.
    Expand
  12. Jul 8, 2012
    7
    Lets give you the bad stuff first. I take away 1 point for the lack of Spider-man action. As you may already know from reviews... It takes a bit of time before you get proper costume.
    When Spidey action does kick in, you grab some popcorn and it's over before you even put it in your mouth. That's most of the action sequences obviously some are longer than others. 1 point deduction for
    Lets give you the bad stuff first. I take away 1 point for the lack of Spider-man action. As you may already know from reviews... It takes a bit of time before you get proper costume.
    When Spidey action does kick in, you grab some popcorn and it's over before you even put it in your mouth. That's most of the action sequences obviously some are longer than others. 1 point deduction for weak Spider-man character building.
    You know how in Sam Raimi's version you got or understood a healthy amount of time had passed from when Parker first becomes (the real) Spider-man to him getting famous from the media? Well that is non existent in this and it's taken for granted that you should know that has happened.
    Yeah it's not fair to force Mark Webb replicate what's been done before but it makes the new film seem rushed and haphazardly put together.

    The last 1 point taketh away is what I like to think of as the George Lucas writing technique... Lazy story writing and the need to connect everything together. Treating you like a dumb4ss.
    You know this big world we live in!? Wouldn't it be cool if we condensed that so it seemed like that "WHOLE WORLD" was the size of a street?! Wouldn't that be cool? Wouldn't it?! My grandpa knows your grandpa and he's also gonna know a kid who is gonna invent RD-D2 and C3PO! Every body is connected yay!! Who needs random? Random? Pfft, randomness is so overrated and unimportant. The Good.
    Everybody gives an Oscar winning performance. Martin Sheen is everybody's uncle! Sally Fields portrays aunt May with such sadness that you get what Peter feels.
    Emma Stone... this girl can make a Uwe Boll film good. She is Gwen Stacy. 100% better than Dunst's Mary Jane. Rhys Ifans does a very good mix of cold and hot as Curt Connors. He can go either way and which ever way he turns you accept it.
    Dennis Leary didn't need to be there and seemed a bit star overload. But he gave a non Leary performance meaning he can act differently when directed right.
    Andrew Garfield again not much needs to be said about this guy. Ever since his role as Eduardo Saverin in The Social Network, you knew he was going on to juicier stuff. This guy can act and in this he has Peter Parker down to a tee. Akwardish guy that is believable when he comes out of his shell and his Spider-man ego is just like his comic book self.

    The effects are good but what do you expect in this day and age? It's a far cry from Raimi's weirdly plastic CGI Spider-man at least from the first movie.
    The first-person view free running scenes are fun in 3D giving you a chance to see it through Spidey's eyes.
    The story is good but not amazing though it flows well. It's a more upbeat Spider-man film that the ones preceding it. Which is a sigh of relief because I wanted to slap Raimi's Peter Parker when he blubbered and whined. None of that here. No whiney Mary Jane either!
    Without giving away anything their are little minute details in the movie that should be applauded.. Watch it to see what I mean.

    Conclusion.
    As much as I hated the EMO "woe is me" overtones of Raimi's Spider-man. It's the superior film over Mark Webb's. Raimi being an actual lifetime fan of Spider-man knew how Spidey fought and moved. Though I guess we could defend the new version as more inexperienced Spider-man.
    It's not too inferior mind... It's just that nothing new has been put on table. You would have thought with The Avengers film coming to fruition at almost the same time they would have liaised and came to the same conclusion that a lot of costume time would have been better. If only you could splice Raimi's and Webb's films together then you'd get the perfect Spider-man.
    Expand
  13. Jul 8, 2012
    9
    Ok... THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN: Yes my first impresion was... hey!? what happened with Sam Raimi(director of the first 3 movies) and with Tobie McGuire!!! But today i saw this movie... and it was pretty COOL! Yes Andrew is a good spider-man and Emma is a good Gwen. The story is good and interesting. BUT... Where are Harry and MJ?? Where the hell is J.J. Jameson??? ANd the Daily Bugle??? SomeOk... THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN: Yes my first impresion was... hey!? what happened with Sam Raimi(director of the first 3 movies) and with Tobie McGuire!!! But today i saw this movie... and it was pretty COOL! Yes Andrew is a good spider-man and Emma is a good Gwen. The story is good and interesting. BUT... Where are Harry and MJ?? Where the hell is J.J. Jameson??? ANd the Daily Bugle??? Some of those ditails make the movie... a little bit confusing for thos who saw the oder 3 movies and the comics.... Yes.. if you´re a Spidy's fan (like me) you don't want to miss this movie.. but there are some things that are very important that weren't in this movie... and is a bit dissapointing Expand
  14. Jul 8, 2012
    7
    wow amazing as we bring new characters and new story nothing to do with the previous spider man, the performances are good and convincing which makes it worthy of a superhero movie and a new generation of spider man
  15. Jul 8, 2012
    4
    this movie was really slow for the first hour and then it got better andrew garfield has to be the worst actor i have ever seen play spider man he acts like he is on drugs half the time
  16. Jul 8, 2012
    6
    It's been five years since audiences have seen a Peter Parker on the big screen. Five years without any blockbuster spider man movie. People around the world including myself have been waiting so long for a good spider man movie...and we got this. What should have been "Spider Man 4" is the slow paced, awfully acted, stupid joke movie known as "The Amazing Spider Man". I feel this movieIt's been five years since audiences have seen a Peter Parker on the big screen. Five years without any blockbuster spider man movie. People around the world including myself have been waiting so long for a good spider man movie...and we got this. What should have been "Spider Man 4" is the slow paced, awfully acted, stupid joke movie known as "The Amazing Spider Man". I feel this movie could have done a lot better if it was just called "The Spider Man". This movie was not amazing. It was very childish and insulted what Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire have done over the years. The only thing this movie has going for it is It's Visual Effects and the acting of Sally Field as Aunt May. Besides that, this movie is nothing special and should not be seen unless you are going to get the DVD. Expand
  17. Jul 8, 2012
    6
    Honestly, I expected a lot when I heard about a reboot for the first time. First of all, Spider-Man NEVER needed a reboot. Previous films were really good, with the exception of Spider-Man 3. This film left so many things uncovered and it felt like I am watching something in fast-forward. I am only giving it 6 marks because "the director also stated that the origin story will unfold notHonestly, I expected a lot when I heard about a reboot for the first time. First of all, Spider-Man NEVER needed a reboot. Previous films were really good, with the exception of Spider-Man 3. This film left so many things uncovered and it felt like I am watching something in fast-forward. I am only giving it 6 marks because "the director also stated that the origin story will unfold not just in this film but in the planned films to come" and it is possible that the sequels might be better than this film. On the acting part, Neither Andrew nor Emma acted good. All the people going crazy after Andrew Garfield should notice the fact that the film was about Spider-Man, not the former. BUT I really admire the visual effects the film utilized and the creativity in respect of the stunts and the action-sequences was better than the previous films. Expand
  18. Jul 8, 2012
    0
    I found it to be incredibly boring. Could not wait until it was over. There was just nothing I liked about this movie. I found the original spiderman movie to be a really good film so I hoped that this movie would be good as well, but I think that the latest movie is more hype than substance.
  19. Jul 8, 2012
    10
    Brilliant movie Andrew Garfield did an excellent job.
    He added emotion and played Parker well.
    The movie gave me goose bumps in some scenes.
    i wouldn't compare the Sam Rami's spider man to this one
    they are both different in their own ways and story... i recommend you to see it now while its on the BIG SCREEN
  20. Jul 8, 2012
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Just because it is a super-hero movie does not mean it cannot be smart and this movie is not smart. I can buy that someone can get bit by a radioactive spider and get super powers because, hey, that's the suspension of belief needed for the genre. If you are not going to go along with that then best to ignore fantasy type movies all together. What I can't by is a high security building with equipment dangerous enough to gas an entire city, can allow someone in just because they have a name tag (and throw someone out because they do not). I also cannot buy that you could just wander around as you please in such a place. And most of all, I do not buy that a teenage intern can access this place whenever they please and create an antidote for a mutant virus that only just appeared, in a matter of 8 minutes. I guess she stayed at a Holiday Inn. Dumb! Expand
  21. Jul 8, 2012
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Perhaps it's because it was only 5 years ago that the last Spiderman film was released but this movie just felt... unnecessary. i didn't feel that there was anything that stood out from Spiderman (2002.) Sure, we had cosmetic differences, but the biggest difference, the mysterious circumstances surrounding Peter's parents' deaths, just felt dull. I couldn't connect with Peter Parker - he was just an arrogant, spoilt ass and I had a hard time feeling sorry for him. The villain was just plain BORING ; an evil lizard bent on infecting a city - really? No thank you. Writing this review just made me further depressed so I just warn you that this Spiderman film really adds little to the original film produced in 2002. Expand
  22. Jul 8, 2012
    7
    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'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 becauseThe 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
  23. Jul 8, 2012
    7
    I am one of the few fans that cried foul when this reboot was announced. It's too soon....It smells like a cash in. What I see is a pleasant surprise...greatly cast with superb chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. Some pretty cool Spidey sequences (but never reaching the pinnacle that was displayed in Spidey 2 and 3). Nevertheless, we've been here before, which makes thisI am one of the few fans that cried foul when this reboot was announced. It's too soon....It smells like a cash in. What I see is a pleasant surprise...greatly cast with superb chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. Some pretty cool Spidey sequences (but never reaching the pinnacle that was displayed in Spidey 2 and 3). Nevertheless, we've been here before, which makes this installment too repetitive in several spots. While I have high hopes for this production team, we have to wait for the inevitable AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 to see this interpretation flourish. Expand
  24. Jul 7, 2012
    5
    Overly-erratic and not developed enough to surpass a two-hour runtime. Andrew Garfield has nothing to work with as Peter Parker and he never gets to develop his character as Spider-Man due to spontaneous action sequences. Oh, and the trailers are misleading. No new information is doled out in this movie about Parker's parents, they didn't even develop that story save for a 10-second teaserOverly-erratic and not developed enough to surpass a two-hour runtime. Andrew Garfield has nothing to work with as Peter Parker and he never gets to develop his character as Spider-Man due to spontaneous action sequences. Oh, and the trailers are misleading. No new information is doled out in this movie about Parker's parents, they didn't even develop that story save for a 10-second teaser in the end credits.

    Not necessarily bad, just completely forgettable.
    Expand
  25. Jul 7, 2012
    9
    This Movie was great, the new Spidey was awesome even with all the changes, Its a totally new FUNNY, POWERFULL,REALISTIC Spiderman, I was hoping to see an Avengers 2 clue but I thik we have to wait
    ooo and It has a secret scene after a Few credits
    It was trully AMAZING
  26. Jul 7, 2012
    7
    While I still believe Sony pulled the plug on Spider-Man 4 and everything, I think Amazing Spider-Man did pretty well for itself. It certainly wasn't great but I can sit here and tell you it was very good. The story doesn't stray too far away from the first Spider-man film of the last trilogy back in 02', so there isn't much originality. The action scenes were decent, fights with SpideyWhile I still believe Sony pulled the plug on Spider-Man 4 and everything, I think Amazing Spider-Man did pretty well for itself. It certainly wasn't great but I can sit here and tell you it was very good. The story doesn't stray too far away from the first Spider-man film of the last trilogy back in 02', so there isn't much originality. The action scenes were decent, fights with Spidey and Lizard are back and forth battles and great to watch. The one thing I was really worried about was the cast, luckily they proved me wrong. The comparisons are inevitable, people (including myself) will compare Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire unjustly. Maguire had 3 movies to cement his legacy, Garfield just this one. With all that said, I think Garfield does a better job of being Peter Parker than he does Spider-Man. He's a spot on Peter Parker in terms of size, mannerism, the way one would picture a "real life" Peter would act. As Spider-Man however, it's a bit raw. He brings the constant sarcasm and wit that the Maguire Spidey didn't do too much, but Garfield did go a bit over the top at times. Emma Stone, who plays more quirky characters in her career, ends up doing really well as the level headed Gwen Stacy. Rhys Ifans does a better Curt Connors/Lizard than expected, you could really feel for his character, also appearing pretty bad ass in the fight scenes as well. Very well done for Sony, hoping they take this trilogy in the right direction. Expand
  27. Jul 7, 2012
    10
    I don't know what people are talking about with saying the movie was a failure--sure, people are entitled to their opinions, but to say the acting was terrible and the story was old? The acting was believable and the story is what it is. It is following the comic books. The similarities there are between this installment and the others has to do with the fact that it is the same story! II don't know what people are talking about with saying the movie was a failure--sure, people are entitled to their opinions, but to say the acting was terrible and the story was old? The acting was believable and the story is what it is. It is following the comic books. The similarities there are between this installment and the others has to do with the fact that it is the same story! I felt they did a really great job at recreating the characters and taking a different route with Gwen Stacy, since the dynamic was more complex than it was with Mary Jane. Anyhow! I loved it! I'm pumped for the next movie. Guess what? I wasn't expecting the movie to make a story that veers from the original, but I was hoping to have a more believable character that wasn't a sap and a love interest that was actually palpable. It delivered those things. That's all it needed for me. I didn't expect a Gotham City retelling of Spider-man, because in Spider-man there isn't political corruption that's ever addressed. In its own rite it fulfilled something that most superhero movies have been missing: substance over action. Expand
  28. Jul 7, 2012
    6
    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 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 aWell, 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
  29. Jul 7, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. As a comic book geek for the past 3 decades, I'm a little more critical than most. However, "The Amazing Spider-Man" gets some things right, comic book-wise, but gets a lot wrong. And from a movie perspective, it's really quite weak. Overall, it's an amazing, albeit expected, disappointment.
    First, let's talk about what The Amazing Spider-Man did right. Andrew Garfield's portrayal of Spider-Man and Peter Parker were very good. He was skinny, gawky, **** and funny. He WAS Ditko's Spidey. I loved him as much as I loved Tobey. And that is saying a LOT. They included his love and aptitude for science. His dialogue while dealing with common criminals was very accurate with a teenager given a little bit of power, yet not realizing the responsibility that comes with it. Painful lessons then ensued to bring said **** teenager back down to Earth. This interpretation of the teenage mind was actually better than the original trilogy. In addition, the creation of his web shooters being a product of Oscorp that he essentially weaponizes was a perfect modern take on them, and another improvement on the original trilogy. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy was absolutely adorable. Her strength, personality and sheer cuteness (even though I prefer the red hair...I have such a thing for red hair) complemented Andrew's portrayal well, especially as they interacted more and the story progressed.
    While I was hesitant about the Lizard as a primary villain, they wove him into the story so well that I was pleasantly surprised to find him so interesting. While Rhys Ifans did a great job as Dr. Connors was a much better selection for portraying the raging Lizard, I always liked Dylan Baker's Dr. Connors. The key to making the Lizard a suitable primary villain, though, was weaving him into a story with some depth, which they did. He was centralized very well with not only a reason to become the Lizard, but also a reason to tie him into Peter/Spidey. Also, fixing the problem they had with the portrayal of Venom, the Lizard was larger than life, ominous and a physically superior being to Spider-Man. Finally, while it took until end to finally see it, the last scene with Peter and Aunt May established a very good chemistry and character element to the overall story. I look forward to seeing this blossom in the future movies as it greatly exceeds the original casting by Raimi. At first I was concerned about May not being portrayed as old enough, but in the end, it worked.
    All of the good things above transpired in the second half of the film, which made me actually stay because, while I've only walked out of two movies in my life (Dune and the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), this was very close to being my third. The first hour of The Amazing Spider-Man was mind-numblingly boring. I was not aware they were seriously going to redo and/or retell his entire origin. The "untold story" required it, apparently. For those who love the ACTUAL origin story and loved the way Raimi told it, this was a kick to the crotch. It was insulting. It was unnecessary. It was so very badly done. It, frankly, ruined the movie for me. I think there was a way to weave the actual origin into this without redoing it all. Next, the script. While the second half of the movie added meat to this new origin, which made the rest of the film tolerable, the dialogue was complete crap. As much as Andrew and Emma seemed good together, the dialogue between them tried repeatedly to screw it up. It was weak, fake and hard to watch. Completely unnatural for two people who appeared to have chemistry.
    Next, the directing. Direction in this film is clumsy, spotty and elementary. Some action scenes are good, some are choreographed and/or edited very poorly. The camerawork during the Emma/Andrew scenes meant to bring them together and have the viewer care about the relationship developing, misses the mark completely. Editing may be more at fault here, especially during action sequences, but the qualitative variance from scene to scene smack of a poorly directed film.
    In the end, while I am always a sucker for comic book movies, especially beloved ones like Spider-Man, nothing happened in The Amazing Spider-Man to warrant dumping Raimi and the original cast. As bad as some may have thought Spider-Man 3 was, this movie did absolutely nothing to prove this was the right direction in which to go. Yet, based on audience and critical reaction, as well as the press around the mid-credit surprise ending piece, two more movies have been announced to tell yet another trilogy. Hopefully this movie will improve over time as the story unfolds, but with Christopher Nolan's Batman/Dark Knight masterpieces and Raimi's original bar set, there is no reason this movie shouldn't have been able to stand on its own, independent of supporting story lines in later films.
    Expand
  30. Jul 7, 2012
    9
    For those that are fans of the comic book, this movie will not disappoint. With the original Sam Raimi movies, the overall direction of the series was an incoherent piecemeal of villains. By the conclusion of Marc Webb's Amazing Spiderman (the new movie), it is clear who the villain will be and what events will transpire in the upcoming movie sequel. Although both directors have taken someFor those that are fans of the comic book, this movie will not disappoint. With the original Sam Raimi movies, the overall direction of the series was an incoherent piecemeal of villains. By the conclusion of Marc Webb's Amazing Spiderman (the new movie), it is clear who the villain will be and what events will transpire in the upcoming movie sequel. Although both directors have taken some liberties in the origin story for the sake of a better movie, Marc Webb's version appears to be more loyal to the overall fantasy portrayed in the comics. 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.