User Score
7.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1427 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

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. Feb 18, 2013
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. When I first heard the Spider-Man film series was gonna be rebooted, I was pretty pissed. But then I saw the a trailer, and I thought "Hmm this could be pretty good". So one day I was on a plane, decided to watch a movie, and there it was the Amazing Spider-Man. And what do I have to say? It's just as good as the first movie. I find Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man more humorous then Tobey Maguire's, however I felt Tobey's fit the high school dork role, with Andrew seeming more like of the everyman. So I believe while Tobey was a better Peter Parker, Andrew is a better Spider-Man. Although I do have issues with the whole promising to stay away from the dying man's daughter only to say "Promises you can't keep are the best kind"....wtf? I was a little peeved she didn't slap him in the face. I have mixed feelings about switching back to the web shooters from the comics. As while they may be iconic and a sign of the character's intellect. I've always felt Spider-Man should naturally posses the ability, but that's just nitpicking. As for the love interest, I personally have a preference for Mary-Jane over Gwen, having grown up on the 90's animated series where Gwen didn't appear. However I happen to be a fan of Emma Stone (Superbad, Zombieland, Easy A) and whoa was she great in this movie. She's got me hoping that they do not follow the death of Gwen Stacy from the comics. Rhys Ifans also does a great job of making Curt Conners sympathetic, and the Lizard villainous. Although I think the Lizard would've looked better with a snout like in the comics. All in all, solid acting, a decent story, and amazing effects. It's really a shame that the film was over-shadowed by The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises......Okay I'm just kidding those films were both better. But The Amazing Spider-Man is defiantly worth a watch. Expand
  2. Jun 12, 2014
    8
    This movie got a lot of hate and I understand why. It's just not what people expected it to be. I strongly believe that this was a lot better than the older ones with Toby McGuire. This seemed like it actually was able to tell a story. And doing it in a lot better acting. The squeal to this was expected to be good, but I thought it was kind of awful to be honest. Once again I choose, theThis movie got a lot of hate and I understand why. It's just not what people expected it to be. I strongly believe that this was a lot better than the older ones with Toby McGuire. This seemed like it actually was able to tell a story. And doing it in a lot better acting. The squeal to this was expected to be good, but I thought it was kind of awful to be honest. Once again I choose, the first over the second. Expand
  3. 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
  4. 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
  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 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!
  7. Oct 29, 2013
    8
    It's a good film so I'll give it a 8/10. The actions are pretty cool too, the way Peter Parker gets his webbing powers are well-explained. The film has a few hilarious scenes so it's a great movie to watch for all age.
  8. Dec 17, 2013
    8
    The Amazing Spider-Man is a mostly successful reboot of Spiderman despite having an agonizingly weak antagonist and shared plots with first Spider-Man movie.
  9. Dec 12, 2013
    8
    Stays a lot like the first Spider-Man in terms of plot, but action-packed fight sequences and great use of CGI make it a fresh take on Peter Parker's story.
  10. Mar 4, 2014
    8
    I really think this is underrated by a lot of people. Despite the obvious flaw of a rehashed story, I think looking past that, every aspect of this film is immensely superior to any other adaption, not just that of Raimi. Amazing acting; Stone never ceases to amaze me. Smart slick humour which I always love, and pretty damn great action sequences. A few odd soundtrack choices, but apartI really think this is underrated by a lot of people. Despite the obvious flaw of a rehashed story, I think looking past that, every aspect of this film is immensely superior to any other adaption, not just that of Raimi. Amazing acting; Stone never ceases to amaze me. Smart slick humour which I always love, and pretty damn great action sequences. A few odd soundtrack choices, but apart from that and a few other flaws, I don't see much wrong with this film. I thoroughly enjoyed it! Expand
  11. Dec 8, 2014
    8
    Although the story sometimes succumbs to some of the 2002's Spider-Man plot points, "The Amazing Spider-Man" is a satisfying installment in Marvel canon thanks to its fantastic cast, well-handed direction and an appealingly dark tone.
  12. Apr 27, 2014
    8
    This movie surprised me. After the fiasco that is Spider-Man 3 I just about lost hope for the Spidey Franchise as a whole. So once i heard they were rebooting the franchise just 5 years after Spider Man 3 you could see my concern. But I am very happy to report that this film was great. Andrew does a great job as Peter and the chemistry between him and Emma just bring this movie to life.This movie surprised me. After the fiasco that is Spider-Man 3 I just about lost hope for the Spidey Franchise as a whole. So once i heard they were rebooting the franchise just 5 years after Spider Man 3 you could see my concern. But I am very happy to report that this film was great. Andrew does a great job as Peter and the chemistry between him and Emma just bring this movie to life. Rhys Ifan's as Dr. Curt Connors a.k.a. The Lizard was the one weak spot in the movie. I didn't feel any emotion or life in this CGI villain. But other then that this is a good film. Two thumbs up. Expand
  13. May 3, 2014
    8
    This movie came out a while ago and so ill keep it simple for anyone who hasnt seen it yet. Its a good movie. period. It makes for one awesome summer flick! very enjoyable!
  14. May 25, 2014
    8
    If you could fully trust the title of this movie then I wouldn't be writing this review. While it isn't "amazing", it sure was great. The main draw are the action sequences. Obviously, viewers are limited in terms of feeling like spider man (because, well, it's a movie) but the camera angles give a great sense of swinging like Tarzan across New York City. I especially liked when it wouldIf you could fully trust the title of this movie then I wouldn't be writing this review. While it isn't "amazing", it sure was great. The main draw are the action sequences. Obviously, viewers are limited in terms of feeling like spider man (because, well, it's a movie) but the camera angles give a great sense of swinging like Tarzan across New York City. I especially liked when it would be in a first person perspective. It all gets quite action packed when Spidey fights the big lizard. Spider man climbs atop ceilings, slides, and dashes to evade the destructive force of his opponent. There's is a lot of walls being smashed. So unless you must see explosions in action movies (there aren't much) then you'll be satisfied with the fight scenes. Andrew Garfield gives a very good performance (He's the actor who plays Spider Man). It's comical when he first starts to use his powers. So all of that's great but there are some bad stuff. Some parts are not original. It's been far to many times when the bomb or device is stopped at the last second. And Gwen only falls for peter because he's a superhero. So occasionally you might feel like you've seen this before. But those complaints aren't significant enough for you to not see it. This is definitely one of my favorite superhero movies. Expand
  15. Sep 3, 2014
    8
    I really love this movie, its great! Spider-man is undoubtedly my favourite super-hero in the marvel universe, and probably out of all the super-heroes there is at the moment! I loved the new actor and the new plot too, it was a remake off the first spider man with Tony Maguire, and I didn't think it would work before I watched it but let me tell you I've never been more wrong! Also, someI really love this movie, its great! Spider-man is undoubtedly my favourite super-hero in the marvel universe, and probably out of all the super-heroes there is at the moment! I loved the new actor and the new plot too, it was a remake off the first spider man with Tony Maguire, and I didn't think it would work before I watched it but let me tell you I've never been more wrong! Also, some great music in it! Expand
  16. Feb 1, 2015
    8
    For a Spider-Man reboot, this is actually pretty good. The origin has some small flaws though, and some scenes are a little lame, but any way, this is quite a good movie. It stands out for its cast and innovative storytelling. It's just different, in a positive way most of the times. It's not better than the first 2 Spider-Man films, but it's far from being the worst.
  17. Mar 12, 2015
    8
    The amazing spider-man was good but not as good as the spider-man movie in 2002. And iam a big spider-man fan i read comic books of spider-man i watch his movies and when i herd that there was going to be a spider-man reboot i was ok with it. And when i saw the trailers i though it was going to be better then spider-man trilogy. But when i saw the movie they took out cool lines that someThe amazing spider-man was good but not as good as the spider-man movie in 2002. And iam a big spider-man fan i read comic books of spider-man i watch his movies and when i herd that there was going to be a spider-man reboot i was ok with it. And when i saw the trailers i though it was going to be better then spider-man trilogy. But when i saw the movie they took out cool lines that some characters said but in the movie those lines or not in the movie at all and that all was bugs me. The good things in this movie is Gwen. stacy her and Peter where perfect togather i loved watching them on the screen and i liked how they added the parents story line like form the comics but then peter forgets about it after he gets his powers and that also bugs me as well. The action is awesome and great specail effects and you have a great solid cast of acters as well. i realy enjoyed this movie but the movie does have some bad things in it as well. The degin of the lizard looked like carp i did not like it at all. And points through out the movie he all was did some thing that no human can ever do and people at his school could tell that his spider-man and he is not keeping his secret identi save. And theres some parts of the plot the they just dont bring up again. But i really injoyed this movie and i would have to give a 8/10 and you ment me wondering why did you like the spider-man movie in 2002 better but you gave it the some rating well i will tell you i can give 2 diffrent movies the same rating and i can still pick on over the other. thanks you guys for reading my review for the amazing spider-man. Expand
  18. Apr 17, 2015
    8
    Finally, a good super-heroes movie! I love spider-man and Andrew Garfield is much better than Tobey Maguire. I didn't like Tobey Maguire's Spider-man series, but this one is fantastic.
  19. May 2, 2015
    8
    Very fun movie! the cast is phenominal! Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have fantastic chemistry, the best of any comic book movie. Andrew brings the spidey from the comics to the big screen
  20. 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
  21. 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 effectsAndrew 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. Expand
  22. May 12, 2014
    7
    The Amazing Spider-Man is a mixed bag getting a lot of stuff right and some stuff eh. The film smartly chooses to really develop Peter Parker making him a full fleshed out character, which is why I love Spider-Man. The film also smartly goes for a more realistic story as opposed to the cartoony/light-hearted feel of the Raimi films giving the movie an identity of its own. The film suffersThe Amazing Spider-Man is a mixed bag getting a lot of stuff right and some stuff eh. The film smartly chooses to really develop Peter Parker making him a full fleshed out character, which is why I love Spider-Man. The film also smartly goes for a more realistic story as opposed to the cartoony/light-hearted feel of the Raimi films giving the movie an identity of its own. The film suffers though from a not so impressive supporting cast, a second half that lacks the depth/substance that made the first half mostly engaging, and rehashing some stuff from the original film. At the end of the day though I liked it. In all honest there are two big reasons why this film didn’t leave that big of an impact on me. For starters, I have immense love of the original films (especially the first two), which will be hard to shake and the fact that this film is coming out ten years after the original Spider-Man movie and five years after the last Spider-Man film so that one is still stuck in my mind. Maybe if the film had come out later or been the original Spider-Man movie I would be more in love with it as opposed to comparing it to the original because it works as its own thing. The second reason why I feel like this movie didn’t make that big of an impression on me was because it came out the same year as The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises two big superhero movies that had a lot of people talking and I guess this one just got lost in the shuffle. So if you are one of the people who missed this film when it came out check this film out as it is entertaining. I’d especially recommend it to people who didn’t think much of the original film as people who didn’t care much for it (ex. Doug Walker, Confused Matthew, and Roger Ebert) seem to prefer this one. If I could shake my nostalgia for the original I’d probably really enjoy it to. If you are a die hard fan of the original like me then try to go in with an open mind or you will be disappointed like I was upon my first viewing. The second time around I was able to accept the film for what it was and appreciate it for what it was trying to do. This is a good start to this new Spider-Man franchise and I hope that Sony keeps it going and doesn’t botch up the second one along with the other planned sequels or they’ll have to try again in another 10 years (which they will probably do anyway) and I don’t know how it will be reviewing the reboot of the reboot. Expand
  23. Jul 18, 2012
    7
    I quite enjoyed this movie.The lead actor is far better than Toby Mquire in my opinion,& the film definately had its moments & it felt 'more real' in the way it was presented as opposed to the very bright & colourful look of the Sam Raimi films.I dont think the action was anywhere near as good as the Raimi films so far though,& no where near as much of it.Still,its only the first movie inI quite enjoyed this movie.The lead actor is far better than Toby Mquire in my opinion,& the film definately had its moments & it felt 'more real' in the way it was presented as opposed to the very bright & colourful look of the Sam Raimi films.I dont think the action was anywhere near as good as the Raimi films so far though,& no where near as much of it.Still,its only the first movie in this series,so theres room for improvment in this area in any sequels,of which i hope there are. Expand
  24. Jul 4, 2012
    7
    A pretty good movie I may say myself however the still think Spiderman 2 is the best Spiderman film ever made. The 'Amazing' Spider-Man is a pretty solid movie especially to all you newgens can't be stuffed watching Maguire's acting. The cast is solid but I feel that they wasted the Lizard's character. Its not that the actor is bad but I don't feel that did much to try and flesh him outA pretty good movie I may say myself however the still think Spiderman 2 is the best Spiderman film ever made. The 'Amazing' Spider-Man is a pretty solid movie especially to all you newgens can't be stuffed watching Maguire's acting. The cast is solid but I feel that they wasted the Lizard's character. Its not that the actor is bad but I don't feel that did much to try and flesh him out like Doc Oct.

    7/10
    Expand
  25. 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
  26. Jul 9, 2012
    7
    Quite a refreshing film actually. The new approaching was well developed and thoroughly planned, even considering It wasn't a smart idea to reboot the saga so early. Despite a little tuned off with a few things, it manages to give a totally new focus on the plot and still resemble the Spider-Man idea, very clearly and precisely.
  27. Jul 3, 2012
    7
    Lets just say, i wasnt expecting much from this move from the start. But holy cow was i wrong. I was sure Toby McGuire was the only one that could play Spider Man that good but Andrew Garfield was spectacular as well as the other actors. The action was more intense than the originals. The movie made me laugh, feel sad, had me in awe, just an amazing movie. Easily my favorite of 2012 so farLets just say, i wasnt expecting much from this move from the start. But holy cow was i wrong. I was sure Toby McGuire was the only one that could play Spider Man that good but Andrew Garfield was spectacular as well as the other actors. The action was more intense than the originals. The movie made me laugh, feel sad, had me in awe, just an amazing movie. Easily my favorite of 2012 so far and now we'll see what Batman brings to the table July 20th. Expand
  28. Jul 6, 2012
    7
    Yeah, it was surprisingly good. Not enough to justify rebooting a good movie to begin with that was made only a decade ago. A lot of really hokey stuff...especially all the scenes with the CGI Spider-Man. If I had to hear Spider-Man yell "Woo-hoo!" one more time while swinging on a web, I probably would have thrown my popcorn at the screen. Please, no more first person-view Spider-ManYeah, it was surprisingly good. Not enough to justify rebooting a good movie to begin with that was made only a decade ago. A lot of really hokey stuff...especially all the scenes with the CGI Spider-Man. If I had to hear Spider-Man yell "Woo-hoo!" one more time while swinging on a web, I probably would have thrown my popcorn at the screen. Please, no more first person-view Spider-Man shots while jumping from building to building. Garfield's acting while Peter Parker saved this movie, and lucky for us, that pretty much dominated this movie. Expand
  29. Jul 3, 2012
    7
    It's very hard for me to assign a number rating to this film, but I think a 7 is as close as I can get to the truth. I'd like to give it higher, but I don't think I could justify an 8. This is a pretty good movie. Nowhere near as good as the Avengers, but it definitely holds its own. The acting is great; Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have great chemistry and Rhys Ifans is great as Dr.It's very hard for me to assign a number rating to this film, but I think a 7 is as close as I can get to the truth. I'd like to give it higher, but I don't think I could justify an 8. This is a pretty good movie. Nowhere near as good as the Avengers, but it definitely holds its own. The acting is great; Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have great chemistry and Rhys Ifans is great as Dr. Connors. The action scenes are great and I think Garfield does a far better job at showing the wise-cracking side of Spidey than Tobey Maguire did.

    Where this movie falls down for me is that I don't feel it knows what it wants to be. While I think overall it is darker than the original trilogy, there are some moments that feel very cartoonish. Which would be fine, but it clashes with the dark tone of the film.

    tl;dr This film is good. See it if you like Spider-Man.
    Expand
  30. 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
  31. Jul 18, 2012
    7
    This movie is good fun. Lots of action, fighting, etc as you would expect from a Spiderman film. If you like Spiderman you should like this movie, if not, then why not?!?!
  32. 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
  33. Jul 9, 2012
    7
    Proving that a vintage concept done the right way is never old, The Amazing Spider-Man uses its familiar plot with addition of great cast to deliver a good superhero flick. It's hard not to make comparison with the last decade's movie, but it manages to avoid overused mechanics just enough and still pays respect to the core of the saga. The harsher tone is very visible with darker New YorkProving that a vintage concept done the right way is never old, The Amazing Spider-Man uses its familiar plot with addition of great cast to deliver a good superhero flick. It's hard not to make comparison with the last decade's movie, but it manages to avoid overused mechanics just enough and still pays respect to the core of the saga. The harsher tone is very visible with darker New York and more vindictive Peter Parker who surprisingly exhibits more angst than Spider-Man 3's Venom. Andrew Garfield is amazing, he's just talented and a perfect cast for a teenage confused by his new found power but still with some wry humor. He's more organic, relaxed and looking very young beyond his age. His relationship with his surrogate parents is humbly relatable. Martin Sheen as Ben Parker and Sally Field as May Parker are brilliant, a kind authoritative figure and affectionate sympathetic guardian, respectively. The bond between them is seemingly genuine, a heartfelt care despite their ongoing tribulation. Martin has delivered one of the more convincing speeches in a rather private context than grandiose fashion of superhero pep talk.

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

    Acrobatic action is the ever present hallmark of Spider-Man, it's more flowing and enjoyable. I like the Spidey-cam, or whatever they call the first person view of Spider-Man is. If only it's more evenly utilized and edited to coexist with the action, it's probably more exhilarating, but that's just a minor complaint. The movement is fast but still regains the clarity of surrounding, which is important on making sense of what transpires on the screen. You can still see the CG effect of the combat, although it
    Expand
  34. Jul 14, 2012
    7
    This movie was decent but it wasn't terrific. I do think that Andrew Garfield played an excellent Peter Parker, alot better than Toby ever could. However, the story was kinda shaky, which is disappointing since I'm a huge fan of the Gwen Stacey storyline, and Emma Stone is a wonderful actor. However, they really missed the mark with her character I think. But the overall story was justThis movie was decent but it wasn't terrific. I do think that Andrew Garfield played an excellent Peter Parker, alot better than Toby ever could. However, the story was kinda shaky, which is disappointing since I'm a huge fan of the Gwen Stacey storyline, and Emma Stone is a wonderful actor. However, they really missed the mark with her character I think. But the overall story was just disappointing. The Lizard was never the best Spiderman Villain and it translated here. I did like the fighting end sequence, which was really well done. However the stuff up to that was fairly lackluster. This definitely wasn't as good, or anywhere near the level of The Avengers from earlier this year and, with Chris Nolan's track record, I can't see this being as good as The Dark Knight RIses either. I believe this movie had to be perfect to come out on top in this superhero heavy summer of movies. Instead it was only good and only being good will get you 3rd place out of the 3 Mega Superhero movies this year. Expand
  35. Aug 24, 2014
    7
    Strong 3 1/2 stars.

    Very enjoyable. Good plot elements and plenty of that giddy feeling you get when a superhero blooms. However, I found that Peter's discovery of his abilities was somewhat... dismissed and not really focused on. That seemed to be a persisting theme in the movie; it moved fluently and didn't feel empty but nothing was really delved too deeply into, be it people,
    Strong 3 1/2 stars.

    Very enjoyable. Good plot elements and plenty of that giddy feeling you get when a superhero blooms.

    However, I found that Peter's discovery of his abilities was somewhat... dismissed and not really focused on. That seemed to be a persisting theme in the movie; it moved fluently and didn't feel empty but nothing was really delved too deeply into, be it people, their evolution or backgrounds.

    For whatever reason I thought the Lizard could have been created a little better. There was something off about him, I don't know what, as he looked just as good as the rest of the movie but something kept bothering me about him.

    All in all a great movie, with very nice soundtrack and good actor performances. Definitely able to stand in comparison to the other recent Marvel movie endeavors (although I wouldn't yet compare this to the most successful ones).
    Expand
  36. Jul 22, 2012
    7
    An entertaining film. It's been done before, but Marc Webb makes a lot of effort to change what we see in the story ie: Mechanical web slinger in stead of organic, Gwen Stacy instead of Mary Jane. The Lizard was a good villain, if rendered in terrible CGI. Yet, the film is a good reboot, and while not up there with the Raimi films, it was very good.
  37. Jul 16, 2012
    7
    The Amazing Spider-Man is very well done. The acting is great, the effects are great, the characters development is very well done. The audience is presented with a more human superhero, flawed in numerous ways but struggling to overcome them while at the same time adapting to his new-found strength. Really, judging it from the comic-lover's point of view, its flawless. And that's all thatThe Amazing Spider-Man is very well done. The acting is great, the effects are great, the characters development is very well done. The audience is presented with a more human superhero, flawed in numerous ways but struggling to overcome them while at the same time adapting to his new-found strength. Really, judging it from the comic-lover's point of view, its flawless. And that's all that matters, isn't it? Expand
  38. 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
  39. Nov 24, 2012
    7
    Presents itself as a more accurate interpretation of the webslinging hero and coupled with some nice action scenes and a more-likeable Peter Parker, its a solid film. A solid film full of discrepancies. While it does present itself as an excellent reboot to the franchise, The original Spider-man movies and esp, Spider-man 2, despite the occasional cheesiness and non-canon elements, doesPresents itself as a more accurate interpretation of the webslinging hero and coupled with some nice action scenes and a more-likeable Peter Parker, its a solid film. A solid film full of discrepancies. While it does present itself as an excellent reboot to the franchise, The original Spider-man movies and esp, Spider-man 2, despite the occasional cheesiness and non-canon elements, does convey a more Spider-man vibe to it - it feels like Spider-man, genuine Spider-man as opposed to this version which, while decent, does feel detracted from the overall feel of Spider-man. The world itself apart from Parker, Uncle Ben and Gwen Stacey, lack character and feels more like a well-shot action film that coincidently has Spider-man in it. Seriously, if you placed a different main character in the movie and just have Spider-man as a side line character, the film would be fine. Its a great film but ultimately, it just doesn't have the feel and distinct 'Spidey-ness' of the original films. Spider-man 2 remains my favourite. Expand
  40. Jul 3, 2012
    7
    Five years after the last Raimi Spider-man film which was an utter disappointment comes The Amazing Spider-Man to bring the hero back into gear. But is it better than its predecessors? The answer is yes and no. The Amazing Spider-Man shows a new Peter Parker, who instead of a nerd, is actually a chill hipster dude who skateboard. Yeah, um that's not who Peter Parker is supposed to be. ButFive years after the last Raimi Spider-man film which was an utter disappointment comes The Amazing Spider-Man to bring the hero back into gear. But is it better than its predecessors? The answer is yes and no. The Amazing Spider-Man shows a new Peter Parker, who instead of a nerd, is actually a chill hipster dude who skateboard. Yeah, um that's not who Peter Parker is supposed to be. But putting that aside, Spider-man was almost perfectly done. One-liners and just taken in a plain humorous sense in some parts of the movie. But, the movie did try to get serious in many scenes like when Uncle Ben dies and that part was actually well done and creates more emotion to Peter's and his uncle's relationship which wasn't so strong in 2002's Spider-Man. The origin story has been told before but this one was well done to say the least. The Lizard looked weird and honestly, didn't even look like a lizard. The action in this movie is really well done also because the camera follows Spidey really well and Andrew Garfield did a decent job as his role. Emma Stone is perfect as Gwen Stacey, probably even better than Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-man. She is much more of a likable character than Mary Jane ever was in the previous movies. This movie was far from being AMAZING but it sure was pretty fun to watch and all Spidey fans should check it out and give it a chance. Expand
  41. Jul 13, 2012
    7
    This was a good super hero movie. It was basically the same movie as the Spider Man with Toby MacGuire in that it had the same plot, same type of characters, and settings/scenes. They did change the details of course providing interesting twists to the essential plot points. The action scenes were better than the Toby MacGuire movie and overall, it had a grittier feel than the original.This was a good super hero movie. It was basically the same movie as the Spider Man with Toby MacGuire in that it had the same plot, same type of characters, and settings/scenes. They did change the details of course providing interesting twists to the essential plot points. The action scenes were better than the Toby MacGuire movie and overall, it had a grittier feel than the original. This spider man was never really a true geek/wus as Toby and when he changes into a tough guy it's more convincing. The main problem with this movie is that the acting isn't nearly as good as the Toby Spider Man. Toby, let's face it, is a far superior actor to this guy. They also made the villain's primary goal very lame. They could have done a lot more with the lizard and some diabolical plans. But, the Lizard was a pretty cool villain overall. The movie is more of a 5 compared to the Toby Spider man but I have to give it an 7 compared to the balance of super hero movies out there which are usually quite good. Cheers! Expand
  42. Jul 13, 2012
    7
    First of all, I believe this film should not have been made at all, at least until a much later date. I believe that the reboot of the series came much too early. However, I did still enjoy this movie to some extent. Being a huge fan of Spider-Man and having read the original comics, they spent far too long on the story as to how Peter managed to obtain his powers. However, the fightFirst of all, I believe this film should not have been made at all, at least until a much later date. I believe that the reboot of the series came much too early. However, I did still enjoy this movie to some extent. Being a huge fan of Spider-Man and having read the original comics, they spent far too long on the story as to how Peter managed to obtain his powers. However, the fight scenes easily make up for this, which are just exhilarating. I also believe that they managed to portray the Lizard very well. Andrew Garfield also manages to create a very like-able character. However, I couldn't help but notice was an absence of some key characters, including Harry Osborn. So, overall, action scenes are great, CGI brilliant, but the first half will likely bore those who have already seen the previous films. Expand
  43. 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
  44. Jul 22, 2012
    7
    Solid reimagining of the Spiderman origin story, which is especially relevant for the vast majority too young to remember the 2002 version. Key substitution in the blonde haired Gwen Stacy character played by redhead Emma Stone in lieu of the traditional redhead love interest Mary Jane Watson, last played by blonde Kirstin Dunst. Pretty epic in a lot of ways, beyond getting bogged down inSolid reimagining of the Spiderman origin story, which is especially relevant for the vast majority too young to remember the 2002 version. Key substitution in the blonde haired Gwen Stacy character played by redhead Emma Stone in lieu of the traditional redhead love interest Mary Jane Watson, last played by blonde Kirstin Dunst. Pretty epic in a lot of ways, beyond getting bogged down in the reengineering of the origin, though it stretches my personal limits in suspending my disbelief as, while I'm okay with the radioactive spider, super powers, giant mutant lizards, fantasy science an all, Peter Parker does all his Internet searches on 'Bing', which is ridiculous, nobody uses Bing. Expand
  45. Jul 3, 2012
    7
    Different twist in building an origin of the superhero, some emotional scenes and new swinging action of the skinny Spiderman is not enough to wipe out Tobby Maguire Spiderman image from your head. Though exciting fun is there to make people come to cinema and I watched in a full packed Hall. Complete review @ http://bit.ly/KK1QuK
  46. Jul 4, 2012
    7
    Stayed much truer to the original comics than its predecessor. Garfield plays a much more believable Peter Parker, and his chemistry with Stone is spot on. The dialog is cute and amusing, but at times Twilight-esk. The action sequences are "meh". It's Peter and Gwen's relationship that make this movie good.
  47. Jul 4, 2012
    7
    It was good, but not great. I am a Spidey-fan, and I loved seeing him again on the big screen. The cast is great. Garfields Peter Parker AND Spider-man is the best I have seen. Stone is great as Gwen, showing the best girlfriend in a Spider-Man movie, plus Ifans as Connors/Lizard. The cast is brilliant, love it very much.

    The story, not so much. Sure I loved how Peter got his powers,
    It was good, but not great. I am a Spidey-fan, and I loved seeing him again on the big screen. The cast is great. Garfields Peter Parker AND Spider-man is the best I have seen. Stone is great as Gwen, showing the best girlfriend in a Spider-Man movie, plus Ifans as Connors/Lizard. The cast is brilliant, love it very much.

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

    So here are the plus and minuses about the movie:

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

    Minuses
    Story, could have been so much more. Expected alot from the trailers.
    Expand
  48. 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
  49. Jul 11, 2012
    7
    While certainly better than the third spiderman movie, this reboot suffers from a sense of over familiarity. So much of the origin story is known through the other version that its hard not to feel bored as the first half of the movie sets things up. Thankfully, Andrew Garfield is pretty good as Peter Parker and he carries things along. The action scenes are also an improvement on theWhile certainly better than the third spiderman movie, this reboot suffers from a sense of over familiarity. So much of the origin story is known through the other version that its hard not to feel bored as the first half of the movie sets things up. Thankfully, Andrew Garfield is pretty good as Peter Parker and he carries things along. The action scenes are also an improvement on the original trilogy. The plot with the Lizard suffers from having to run alongside the origin stuff. I have no doubt that the sequel will benefit from being able to run with its own ideas from the get-go. Its not a bad start but its not brilliant. Sandwiched in between the popcorn fun of the Avengers movie and the (as yet unseen as I write this) epic conclusion to Nolans Batman movie trilogy was never going to be easy but Amazing Spiderman is worth a look regardless and the inevitable follow up may be more an indication of whether Garfield and Co. rise above Tobey Maguires run. Expand
  50. b3_
    Jul 14, 2012
    7
    7/10 an average to decent movie experience. Those going into the movie roughly know what to expect from a superhero themed film. A reasonable mix of action, comedy and thrills which works well. The movie is definitely suited to a teen audience as they can relate to the main character to an extent and enjoy the action scenes in particular. The story is simple to follow, but stays7/10 an average to decent movie experience. Those going into the movie roughly know what to expect from a superhero themed film. A reasonable mix of action, comedy and thrills which works well. The movie is definitely suited to a teen audience as they can relate to the main character to an extent and enjoy the action scenes in particular. The story is simple to follow, but stays entertaining due to the aura of mystery and suspense. For me the bad thing about this movie is that it is predictable and uses a very familiar formula that some of us know too well. However the target audience will not really be affected by this. Expand
  51. Jul 17, 2012
    7
    Spiderman 4 has a strong story eventough it almost the same like the first sequel of Spiderman... Andrew Garfield was so cool! The enemy of Spiderman is strong and have great impact to Spiderman real life... I hope next sequel of Spiderman can be like this and maintain to its track...
  52. May 4, 2014
    7
    Very decent spider-man film, sadly the main problem i have with the film is the fact that it really feels, slow, boring and doesn't have that FUN witty Peter Parker/spider-man charm also the Villain, The Lizard was pretty terrible their wasn't any really reason for me to FEEL anything for him. Otherwise its a good film with amazing visuals and a brilliant cast with cool little hints at 2Very decent spider-man film, sadly the main problem i have with the film is the fact that it really feels, slow, boring and doesn't have that FUN witty Peter Parker/spider-man charm also the Villain, The Lizard was pretty terrible their wasn't any really reason for me to FEEL anything for him. Otherwise its a good film with amazing visuals and a brilliant cast with cool little hints at 2 whats to come from Marc Webbs spider-an film series. Expand
  53. 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'sMost 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
  54. Sep 27, 2012
    7
    This new spidey flick, as of 2012...is a pretty decent film. Has a few mistakes, but not every film is perfect. Marc Webb seemed to have started this new franchise off with a good start. It is grossing quite well. 751 million worldwide as of September 2012. Though, it's not it's gross that matters. It's the value of the film. What it conveys to us fans. I believe that even though it wasThis new spidey flick, as of 2012...is a pretty decent film. Has a few mistakes, but not every film is perfect. Marc Webb seemed to have started this new franchise off with a good start. It is grossing quite well. 751 million worldwide as of September 2012. Though, it's not it's gross that matters. It's the value of the film. What it conveys to us fans. I believe that even though it was basically another version of Raimi's Spider-Man from 2002, it has a different storyline. For example, Gwen Stacy comes in as a main character, Uncle Ben is actually killed due to an attempt to stop a thief, the villain is the Lizard, the new suit, web-shooters, and the fact that Peter is a bit more **** this time. Though, he isn't bad. The only problem about this which may have not been such a big deal to other viewers, is that in some scenes, Spidey seemed to have "lost" his Spider-sense. For example, when he was tazed by a policeman near the end of the film, and when he was on a spider web in the sewers, and was suddenly attacked by the Lizard as if he was surprised. Overall, even though there were flaws, it's a great film to watch. I can't wait to watch the sequel which comes out in 2014, and well...That's the end of my review. Go Spidey! Expand
  55. 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
  56. Jan 31, 2013
    7
    It was far better than I expected it to be. But was it really necessary to have yet another Spider-Man origin story so soon? Andrew Garfield is far more believable as Peter Parker than Tobey Maguire was but I still feel he doesn't look the part. Martin Sheen as Ben Parker & Sally Field as Aunt May were a pleasant surprise, but I feel their faces are far too familiar to be playing suchIt was far better than I expected it to be. But was it really necessary to have yet another Spider-Man origin story so soon? Andrew Garfield is far more believable as Peter Parker than Tobey Maguire was but I still feel he doesn't look the part. Martin Sheen as Ben Parker & Sally Field as Aunt May were a pleasant surprise, but I feel their faces are far too familiar to be playing such iconic characters. Emma Stone is a pretty good Gwen Stacy. But as someone else here said both Stone & Garfield are perhaps a bit to old for the roles they've been cast in, and they look it. The movie could have been better as it did take a bit too long to build up to Spider-Man's first appearance (about an hour if I remember correctly.) However the Spider-Man of this movie is just perfect. Far more true to the character from the comics. The Lizard was also pretty well portrayed and I'm one of the few who actually liked the new design, it felt more believable. Classic Lizard does look cooler but might have come off too cartooney in live action. Also, it really was a shame that Ben Parker never said his famous "with great power ...." line. I found it really curious as to why they left it out? Overall: A slight improvement on the 2002's Spider-man, but just barely. Hopefully the pacing in the next film will be a bit better without needlessly drawn out expositional scenes. Expand
  57. Jan 23, 2013
    7
    Its a made well movie but not great. Some errors like lines and ageing makes it bad, worst part is that they are 29 and 27. THEY ARE TEENS! They can't be 30 it's like seeing Iron Man be 74. It is a movie likely to succeed but a prequel would not be high in getting a prequel.
  58. Feb 28, 2013
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. When I heard that Spider-Man was going to be rebooted, I was not supportive of the idea because I felt the story might not be good, and it's going to be weird seeing Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker /Spider-Man instead of Tobey Maguire. Nevertheless, I saw the Amazing Spider-Man and I was pleasantly surprised about what I saw. Its not perfect, but still manages to be a well creative story. So whats different about this movie? Well, the movie does a better job of telling Peter Parker's back story than the original Spider-Man trilogy. Second is the relationship between Uncle Ben and Peter Parker is a lot better. Third, I loved Uncle Ben in the original film, but I felt like he was side-tracked and I didn't knew much about him. This Uncle Ben is funny, he cares about his Peter, and wants to help him through his troubles. Its a sham that he dies during the movie because I really liked him. All these make the Amazing Spider-Man good, but I still have a few major issues with it. First is Andrew Garfield's dialogue isn't that great. He is good in the suit, but not in the speaking. Second is the characters, Emma Stone is a good actress and she does a good job as Gwen Stacy, but others like Dr. Conners isn't really that interesting, Denis Leary as Gwen's father was disappointing. I like Denis Leary, but I believe this is not one of his better movies, and everyone else is bland. The main problem I have with all these characters is we don't know much about their back story or their motive. Dr. Conners was okay, but I didn't know much about him. Even though the movie is basely on Spider-Man, I want to know about other characters even the scene is only 5 minutes long. The Amazing Spider-Man is a good movie, not one of my personal favorite, but still watchable. Expand
  59. Feb 3, 2013
    7
    As a fan of the original spider-man movie trilogy I was a little concerned over the concept of a re-boot, but marvel did a great job of making it feel fresh. The new actors are definitely stronger than the original which was a nice surprise. I felt the chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone was great and The action was fantastic as we've come to expect from marvel films. TheAs a fan of the original spider-man movie trilogy I was a little concerned over the concept of a re-boot, but marvel did a great job of making it feel fresh. The new actors are definitely stronger than the original which was a nice surprise. I felt the chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone was great and The action was fantastic as we've come to expect from marvel films. The problems I had with the films however were mainly with the familiarity of certain scenes to ones in the original. Obviously we have to see some scenes from the original spider-man again but there was a strong sense of deja-vu in a lot of the scenes. Also the lizard as the villain had the most cliche origin in all of comic books ever. I think this was a amazingly strong reboot and I hope the sequel improves on the fantastic foundation set by this movie! Expand
  60. Feb 28, 2013
    7
    It's not a movie that wins awards and it's not close to reaching the magnificent height of "The Dark Knight", the best super hero-movie to date, but who cares? This film has got just the right amount of action and humour that is expected out of a Spider Man-film, and Andrew Garfield actually makes a great performance as the classic super hero.
  61. 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.
  62. Sep 20, 2013
    7
    Two hours long, this reboot of the Spiderman franchise is substantial; a solid film. It is nothing like the original trilogy, but it still keeps your attention for a little bit, occasionally losing focus, then hitting a solid note again. It's a drifting movie looking for a target.
  63. Apr 27, 2014
    7
    An alright superhero movie. I was never a big fan of the first Spiderman movies and not a fan at all of Spiderman in general. He is one of my least favourite superhero's. There were some cool action scenes in this movie to keep me entertained enough but nothing to special at all.
  64. May 17, 2015
    7
    Good movie has great special effects, the relationship between Gwen Stacy and Peter Parker is good the story so that is good, but does not show very well the Spider Man responsibilities.
  65. Nov 10, 2014
    7
    The Amazing Spider-Man is a mostly successful reboot of Spiderman despite having an agonizingly weak antagonist and shared plots with first Spider-Man movie.
  66. Aug 20, 2014
    7
    Reboot time! The 2002-2007 Sam Raimi Spiderman franchise came to a close once SM3 disapointed many fans. So long story short the franchise was rebooted. July 6, TASM came . Andrew Garfield starring as Peter/ spiderman and Emma stone starring as gwen stacey. The main villian in this movie is Dr. Conners aka the lizard. Overall the movie was a decent film. I give a 7.8. I did enjoy it though!
  67. Dec 23, 2014
    7
    .This Summer Witness yet Another Spider-Man movie so Sony Can Retain The Rights To It's Character.The Amazing Spider-Man is dark and more mature than the original but lacks story.It brings back the moments that we already saw in the original film and brings back Thing we like about the character Peter Parker/Spider-Man.Andrew Garfield is great being Peter/Spider-Man and Emma Stone as Gwen.This Summer Witness yet Another Spider-Man movie so Sony Can Retain The Rights To It's Character.The Amazing Spider-Man is dark and more mature than the original but lacks story.It brings back the moments that we already saw in the original film and brings back Thing we like about the character Peter Parker/Spider-Man.Andrew Garfield is great being Peter/Spider-Man and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy.Spider-Man looks so good when he's fighting a villain and New York is Just so good too. Expand
  68. Jan 4, 2015
    7
    The Amazing Spider-Man is a very enjoyable reboot with fun action and some likeable characters. However, the villain was very weak and there were some moments that were so implausible that they were stupid. Still, the movie is fun and definitely worth your time.
  69. Jan 11, 2015
    7
    Definitely doesn't reach the height of the Sam Raimi films and while it may be too early for a Spider-Man reboot, it's worth seeing for any Marvel fan anxious to see another film involving your friendly neighborhood, Spider-Man.
  70. Apr 22, 2015
    7
    not as good as spider man 1.2 and even 3 (I liked 3). its not very good but it still pretty good. the spider man charter was play down a little bit but that's it.
  71. May 25, 2015
    7
    A reboot already? How rediculous! Well, aside from the fact that this reboot could have waited at least another three years (how can you reboot something after five years?), it's a pretty decent movie. I say decent, as I'd give it a 6.5/10. It's cool to see a new take on his origin, and with a villain not in any previous Spider Man movie (The Lizard). The action is good and so is the CGI.A reboot already? How rediculous! Well, aside from the fact that this reboot could have waited at least another three years (how can you reboot something after five years?), it's a pretty decent movie. I say decent, as I'd give it a 6.5/10. It's cool to see a new take on his origin, and with a villain not in any previous Spider Man movie (The Lizard). The action is good and so is the CGI. Still, the writing feels weaker than the last Spider Man origin story. I just didn't care for it as much. Expand
  72. Jul 12, 2012
    6
    The Amazing Spider Man is good, but not quite amazing. This is do on par with the fact that it has a lot to live up to after the almost perfect trilogy brought by director Sam Raimi. Expectations at least from my part were all too short given that I really enjoyed those last films, and while this reboot didnt really satiate me completely, I did for a fact enjoyed watching it. The firstThe Amazing Spider Man is good, but not quite amazing. This is do on par with the fact that it has a lot to live up to after the almost perfect trilogy brought by director Sam Raimi. Expectations at least from my part were all too short given that I really enjoyed those last films, and while this reboot didnt really satiate me completely, I did for a fact enjoyed watching it. The first problem with the film is that it is doomed to repeat what we already know. For the first half an hour, Spideys obligatory build up before becoming the hero we know is revisited, and that includes Peter being bitten by a spider and Peter watching his uncle Ben being murdered. The director seemed aware of the issue as the scenes are given some new twists, and also seemed to resume everything as quick as possible, but this overall make them feel uneventful. Once that is overcome, the movie starts opening some interesting elements, as well as some interesting characters. Emma Stone as Gwen is great to give an example. Actions scenes are quite nice ,but I dunno if as memorable as other heart pumping scenes from the first three, like per say: the train sequence in Spiderman 2. The soundtrack is OK but at the end pretty forgettable and really falls short to the outstanding soundtrack from the hexed trilogy before it. At the end, perhaps "The Amazing Spider Man´s" most unselfish but unfortunate fate is that it going to be compared to Sam Raimi´s work, and it is from that perspective that it falls short in some and other aspects. It is a good movie to watch with great characters, fighting scenes, music and actor performances, but all of that was also done (and in some ways even better) with the first line of movies and this calls into question if it was really necessary to start all over again. Expand
  73. 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.
  74. 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.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
  75. Jul 10, 2012
    6
    This reboot follows the familiar storyline: nerdy Peter Parker (played by Andrew Garfield) has a crush on a girl (Emma Stone), gets bit by a spider, discovers his powers, makes a suit and combats an evil nemesis. This is Garfield's star turn. He brings a personality to the part that makes him constantly charming, even though his emotional side just keeps turning on the water works. TheThis reboot follows the familiar storyline: nerdy Peter Parker (played by Andrew Garfield) has a crush on a girl (Emma Stone), gets bit by a spider, discovers his powers, makes a suit and combats an evil nemesis. This is Garfield's star turn. He brings a personality to the part that makes him constantly charming, even though his emotional side just keeps turning on the water works. The story starts with promise and the early discovery scenes are entertaining, but as the film develops, it falls apart. The action scenes are often muddled and over-edited. The lizard villain looks fake. The pacing lags more than once. Other than Garfield, there's not much here's to recommend. NOTE: Stay thru the first part of the credits for a sequel teaser. Expand
  76. Nov 26, 2012
    6
    The Amazing Spider-Man is probably the best in the franchise yet. The movie is particularly fun when dealing with the discovery of powers. It doesn't hurt that Emma Stone is hot, either. This Spider-Man is at it's worst during the action scenes but still does more than enough to entertain. Basically speaking, The Amazing Spider-Man is a promising reboot.
  77. 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'tIts 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
  78. 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
  79. Sep 24, 2012
    6
    The Amazing Spider-Man is a decent quality film and a pretty fun ride. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are excellent, with Garfield remembering to be a human first and a superhero second, and stone having great chemistry with the web-head as Peter Parker's highschool sweetheart Gwen Stacy. Denis Leary is also superb as Gwen's over-protective, condescending but well-meaning police captainThe Amazing Spider-Man is a decent quality film and a pretty fun ride. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are excellent, with Garfield remembering to be a human first and a superhero second, and stone having great chemistry with the web-head as Peter Parker's highschool sweetheart Gwen Stacy. Denis Leary is also superb as Gwen's over-protective, condescending but well-meaning police captain dad. Rhys Ifans is less successful as The Lizard, the film's most prominent antagonist, his performance inconsistent, his character's motivations ill-defined and his CGI-transformed appearance looking a little off (an anthropomorphic face grafted onto a reptilian body turns out not to be the cleverest design decision in motion picture history). It's nice to see a new take on the titular hero that's more like Smallville than Sam Raimi's trilogy, but you do feel a little cheated at the film's conclusion with its many hanging plot threads that will doubtless be resolved in the sequel(s). Though The Amazing Spider-Man breaks new ground in terms of its slow-burning style of storytelling, the key beats in the plot are predictable and cliched, and the film as a whole is far too long, though I'm not sure which scenes could justifiably be cut to improve pacing without negatively impacting the story as a whole. It's oddly gratifying to see director Marc Webb finally attempt to address the (theoretical) physics involved in someone swinging from skyscrapers, and by executing many of the film's stunts in reality using sophisticated wire-work and harnesses, he manages to avoid the slightly rubbery Spidey of the Raimi era. The Amazing Spider-Man is a solid foundation for a new franchise that remains pleasingly grounded and promises to explore the lesser-known lore of the Spideyverse. The post-credits scene also suggests that the sequel could go to some really interesting places now all that lengthy exposition is out of the way again. Expand
  80. Jul 21, 2012
    6
    At the end of the day , regardless of how hard director Marc Webb tries to veil it , you simply cannot escape the fact that the Amazing Spider - Man is nothing more than old wine in a new bottle . Director Webb's decision to re - visit Spidey's origin , has in my opinion backfired . It lacks the maturity and slick sense of style so very characteristic of Christopher Nolan's Batman films ,At the end of the day , regardless of how hard director Marc Webb tries to veil it , you simply cannot escape the fact that the Amazing Spider - Man is nothing more than old wine in a new bottle . Director Webb's decision to re - visit Spidey's origin , has in my opinion backfired . It lacks the maturity and slick sense of style so very characteristic of Christopher Nolan's Batman films , being overly - reliant on traditional comic book movie cliche and somewhat unimaginative set - pieces . The performances of the entire cast - Garfield and Stone in particular - are worth a mention as they keep you invested in some otherwise dull moments . At the end of the day , I can't help but feel that The Amazing Spider - Man could have been so much better had the creators not decided to take an overly - conservative approach and instead would've dared to think outside - the - box the way Nolan did with his Batman films . Nonetheless , it's still decent fun if you've got a few hours to spare , just don't set your expectations sky high Expand
  81. Jul 14, 2012
    6
    Despite my expectations, this film was reasonably good entertainment. I was expecting to come out of the cinema thinking that 2 hours of my life had been improperly taken away and what I dislike about 2 hour films is that they tend to drag and fill in gaps in the middle with pointless stuff. It wasn't really what I would call a fresh start; if it would bother people like writers andDespite my expectations, this film was reasonably good entertainment. I was expecting to come out of the cinema thinking that 2 hours of my life had been improperly taken away and what I dislike about 2 hour films is that they tend to drag and fill in gaps in the middle with pointless stuff. It wasn't really what I would call a fresh start; if it would bother people like writers and directors to take this material and put something new into it, it would be helpful to make us aware of what the film was supposed to be about. We get it, Peter gets bitten by a spider and gains superpowers, but what it was mainly setting up was for us to find out about a guy trying to achieve perfection who ends up turning into a giant lizard and terrorising the city. As well as revisiting familiar plot points, it gave us something fairly useless to go on - we could have known more about Peter's parents. Besides that, the characters themselves provided better entertainment, which is for the fact that good humour is something I like in films, but, ironically, Peter Parker had little depth despite being the main character. I would have given a higher score, but it pains me to say that you cannot make a good film if you cover familiar ground, add new ideas and claim it as your own. Expand
  82. Nov 12, 2012
    6
    Andrew Garfield pulls off Peter Parker with a lot more believability than Tobey Maguire. This isn't the best super hero movie by any stretch, but it's an entertaining 90 minutes. I'll probably even watch a sequel, something I never did with Maguire in the lead role.
  83. Jul 3, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This reboot of spiderman is in no way bad, but definitely has room for improvement. To start off, everything looks great, the web slinging, spidey in his suit, and the Lizard. Andrew Garfield is a much better Peter Parker than Tobey Maguire, and I loved all of his smart quips during fights, its just a classic Spider-man thing and I really loved how Garfield played this role. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy was likable, but overall was much more under developed compared to Parker and Dr. Connors. Speaking of Connors, he was awesome...until he became the Lizard. The Lizard was a good choice as the leads villain, but just didn't pose a huge threat to Peter or Spidey as I had hoped he would. My major problem with the movie as whole, however, was that Peter never found the guy who killed Uncle Ben, and I realize that maybe he realized what he was doing was immature as Capt. Stacy (played by a surprisingly good Dennis Leary) knocked Spidey for beating on criminals of the same type, but the director could have at least had more closure to the whole story arc, and it just abruptly ended as the Lizard came into play. All in all, a solid superhero movie that has room to grow into something great and I can safely say that I am looking forward to where this iteration of Spider-man goes in the future. Expand
  84. Jul 3, 2012
    6
    This version of the Spider-Man franchise is definitely better than the original, but it gets hung up on some of the same problems. The cast was my favorite part of the movie, lead by Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Martin Sheen, Sally Fields, and Rhys Ifan. Each of them did a wonderful job of making their characters feel very real and genuine. The effects were really good as well (exceptThis version of the Spider-Man franchise is definitely better than the original, but it gets hung up on some of the same problems. The cast was my favorite part of the movie, lead by Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Martin Sheen, Sally Fields, and Rhys Ifan. Each of them did a wonderful job of making their characters feel very real and genuine. The effects were really good as well (except for the lizard, which looked really weird). My big problem with this film is that it spent a little too much time on exposition and it relies on some of the same old super hero cliches and sentimentality making the movie seem "cheap" at times. It's also follows a very similar path as the original Spider-Man, and even though the filmmakers pulled it off, I wish they could have taken it in a different direction. But the bottom line is that it's an entertaining, better than average super hero movie, and I'm kinda looking forward to a sequel. Expand
  85. Aug 8, 2012
    6
    Watched a 2D version in the cinema, and now the aftertaste is quite irony since the redux deliberately put an
  86. 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
    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
  87. Apr 6, 2014
    6
    I dunno what all the hate for this movie is about. It's not the best, it's not the worst. It's a fun Spiderman movie if you like Spiderman, but if you're not really a comic book person then you can safely skip this movie without having missed much.
  88. 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
  89. Jul 5, 2012
    6
    This film is ok and quite enjoyable, Garfield is a good spiderman and peter parker and the on screen chemistry between him and stone is good. The CGI is good and for once in an action film you can actually see what is going on rather than the usual blurry sequences we get these days. its about time film makers slowed things down just a touch so we can see the action and enjoy it. This filmThis film is ok and quite enjoyable, Garfield is a good spiderman and peter parker and the on screen chemistry between him and stone is good. The CGI is good and for once in an action film you can actually see what is going on rather than the usual blurry sequences we get these days. its about time film makers slowed things down just a touch so we can see the action and enjoy it. This film manages it. When the film was over some guy next to me was clapping, for my money this film in no way deserves this show of appreciation but it is a good effort. One of the better comic book films and i preferred it over raimis efforts. Expand
  90. Jul 3, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Does The Amazing Spider-Man usher in an exciting new chapter in the franchise or signal yet another reboot?

    I have joined millions of moviegoers in condemning the horrid Spider-Man 3, a film that put the once-proud franchise into a coma with a single dance scene. But there were more issues to that film than just the sidestepping: the product felt tired and bereft of imagination, as if our hero needed a partner or a major shakeup. Throwing too many substandard enemies at one hero never solved anything, but that's exactly what we got. Something needed to change, but was a reboot really necessary? That was Sony's call; and so five years after Tobey Maguire and company were shown the door, the lights dim for The Amazing Spider-Man.

    Sadly, The Amazing Spider-Man is too drawn out, uninspiring, and downright boring. Its disappointment is so profound that it's a far cry from Spider-Man 1 & 2 and the worst superhero movie since Green Lantern. You all know the story: Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) is bitten by a genetically-enhanced spider and wakes up with enhanced abilities. Yet, this is where the similarities between Sam Raimi's films and the current one end: webbing emanates from a man-made source, Mary Jane has been replaced by Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), and even Parker's biological parents are Oscorp doctors who pass off young Peter to Aunt May (Sally Field, Norma Rae) and Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) before meeting an untimely end. Fast forward several years, and both Parker and Stacy are high school classmates, not twenty-somethings as were portrayed in the Raimi films. Stacy has inexplicably landed a cushy internship with Oscorp and its chief researcher Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who is seeking to reconstruct severed human limbs (including his own) in an effort to prolong human life. Connors worked with Parker's father (Campbell Scott) on the same recipe, only to see his work stifled with a missing formula that Peter discovers in dad's old briefcase. And just like the comics, Connors tests the newly-completed serum on himself, turning into the superhuman monster The Lizard. Rattled by the death of Uncle Ben and the news of Connor's transformation, Peter must balance his new powers with the realization that everyone close to him is at risk of the same violent ends if he remains Spider-Man. On the surface, it seems many of these resets would signal a new-found respect by Sony to remain faithful to the Marvel universe. But, consider this blasphemous alteration: almost everyone in the city knows Spider-Man's true identity, from a young boy stuck in a burning van to the police captain running the manhunt for the webslinger (Dennis Leary). There's even a suggestion that Aunt May herself has put two and two together after seeing Peter return home bruised and battered near the movie's ending. Why screenwriter James Vanderbilt would at first show such respect for canon then throw grenades like this into the middle of his script is beyond me. Either he assumes we're not fully vested with the character to begin with, or we're just ignorant moviegoers who consume and forget when the lights kick on. Either way, this insult doesn't help indie Director Marc Webb, who tries his best to paint pretty action scenes (such as several first-person views of Spider-Man slinging his way through the city) but fails to achieve anything new or exciting. And while our promising cast does its best with Vanderbilt's sub-par script, bad screenplays always trump good acting, a fact which is demonstrated in some of the cheesiest dialogue I've heard from the franchise ("I've been bitten - so have I," says our leads as Parker shares all). While capable actors, Garfield and Stone have little chemistry together and seem like an odd pairing from the start. Moreover, the story takes too long to develop, forcing audiences to wait 45 minutes before seeing any real action, none of which is satisfying or even inventive even in 3D. In fact, many of them feel like retreads of Raimi's efforts, demonstrating the incredible command he had of the character.

    Anyone who tells you this film is exciting or even a well-drawn character-driven story has obviously not seen The Avengers. Had The Amazing Spider-Man debuted sometime in the spring, perhaps my reaction would have been different. Once again that was Sony's call to make, and their product is so much the worse for it. Why they decided it was time to reboot, rather than reload, will confound moviegoers until one considers the contract, which requires the studio to produce a film every so many years, or lose the rights to Marvel. Therefore, The Amazing Spider-man is essentially a contract extension, doomed by a boring and plodding script and a post-credits scene that felt incomplete and largely ineffective. Let's hope Marvel can someday wrestle Spider-Man away from Sony, because very little about this version is inspiring or even worth the time.
    Expand
  91. 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
  92. Dec 11, 2012
    6
    'The Amazing Spider-Man' fails to match the original Spider-Man, and deems itself to be ultimately pointless - revisiting original plot points, a predictable premise and a mediocre villain all are contributing factors. It seems that the film industry is spawning less and less original films, and more re-boots, re-hashes and sequels - and this is a shining example of that. TASM is a good'The Amazing Spider-Man' fails to match the original Spider-Man, and deems itself to be ultimately pointless - revisiting original plot points, a predictable premise and a mediocre villain all are contributing factors. It seems that the film industry is spawning less and less original films, and more re-boots, re-hashes and sequels - and this is a shining example of that. TASM is a good film, but we were only just getting used to Sam Raimi's Spidey Trilogy - and even though Spider-Man 3 was horrid, this still seems too similar to the original whilst not quite introducing anything new or fresh that might drive this new trilogy. Expand
  93. Jul 3, 2012
    6
    For a reboot, it was okay. The Lizard was okay, but I'm wondering if the producers knew that the Lizard was not that interesting in the comic version prior. The actor (Andrew Garfield) did alright while Spiderman, but while Peter Parker, makes me sad for the actor and I guess for young Peter. Aunt May is supposed to be about as innocent as a senior citizen in the big city can be; SallyFor a reboot, it was okay. The Lizard was okay, but I'm wondering if the producers knew that the Lizard was not that interesting in the comic version prior. The actor (Andrew Garfield) did alright while Spiderman, but while Peter Parker, makes me sad for the actor and I guess for young Peter. Aunt May is supposed to be about as innocent as a senior citizen in the big city can be; Sally Field honestly didn't fill the shoes as well as her predecessor Rosemary Harris (btw, I like Sally Field, this just wasn't her part). Emma Stone and her character were actually the bright lights of the casting. Even Martin Sheen (whom I love as an actor) didn't really add to or improve on the prior Ben Parker. Last note: The standard Marvel teaser at the end of the credits - total flop - did nothing to make me want to see any upcoming Marvel movies, did not whet my appetite for more ... nothing. Best thing about it was that it lasted perhaps a minute.
    If I knew then what I know now, I'd have saved the money and waited for DVD.
    Expand
  94. 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
  95. Jul 5, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Dear Mark Webb. Is your name Christopher Nolan? No? THEN WHY THE HELL ARE YOU PRETENDING TO BE?!?! Full disclosure here I actually review movies and videogames professionally this is not a professional review this is a fan's livid rant about how my fellow peers can rate an average movie so highly. I have to give Mr Webb credit for being bold. He tries a lot of new ideas some work but most don't. The plot changes itself in the middle of the movie not once but twice. I don't know who to blame here. i never expected much from this movie since hearing about it two years ago, but after seeing some of the previews I thought maybe just maybe it might not be half bad. Unfortunately I was horribly horribly wrong. What is it everyone loves about this movie? The story of the movie is just as lost and confused as the rest of us. I thought Emma Stone looked quite a bit like Gwen Stacy I think she did a decent job. I think Garfield did as best as he could with the script given to him he certainly moved like Spider-Man did, but why was his character portrayed so far from what makes Peter Parker? I really don't know who is at fault here I think enough went wrong that it isn't possible for one person to take the blame for all of it. I would recommend seeing it so you can understand just how horribly things went wrong. I would like to ask my fellow peers just how many of you sucked Stan Lee's dick to give this average movie such a high rating. Very little is ever resolved. The whole movie feels like they filmed about 6 hours worth of footage, and a few months before the movie was set to release they realized they were out of time, and said ok just watch the footage and give me 2 and a half hours worth of decent material. Then we all give it to the editors and work or magic. Audiences are so gullible and trusting now so they will just take whatever we give them as long as we throw some cool special effects in there to whet their appetite. Why am I so angry you ask? This movie was meant to "correct" whatever Canon issues the Sam Raimi films had. It does the exact opposite. They change the personality of Peter Parker ENTIRELY from "canon" He is a somewhat loner skater kid? I was waiting for Avril Lavigne sk8er boi to kick in in the background. Peter was bullied he doesn't save others from bullies he was NEVER a popular kid. Furthermore what happens to the vengeance? Ya we know he won't go through with it but the entire thing is dropped. They spend 20 minutes of the movie setting it up just to drop it entirely? Oh and what happened to the dialogue in EVERY trailer of Kurt Konners telling Peter "You think this was a coincidence?" I think we all know where the story would have gone, problem is it didn't exist in the movie. Whatever plot used to be in the movie, and isn't is advertised heavily in the trailer. This movie pissed me off but it pisses me off more that so many of my peers are freaking sell outs. It isn't horrible but it is far from Amazing. Who do we blame editing department? Director? Writer? Pushy Producers? They changed just about everything about Spider-man yet they claimed this would be more "true" to the original. And most importantly. WHY THE HELL DID HALF THE FREAKING PEOPLE IN THE MOVIE KNOW WHO HE WAS? Expand
  96. 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
  97. 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
  98. Jul 20, 2012
    6
    So the reboot machine keeps on churning out films from our childhood but here we have a reboot, or should i say remake, of a movie series that only ended 5 years ago. Granted Spider-Man 3 felt like it was stuff to the brim with too many characters and too much going on to be coherent so going back to basics is a good idea but not necessarily back to the origin story as even though thisSo the reboot machine keeps on churning out films from our childhood but here we have a reboot, or should i say remake, of a movie series that only ended 5 years ago. Granted Spider-Man 3 felt like it was stuff to the brim with too many characters and too much going on to be coherent so going back to basics is a good idea but not necessarily back to the origin story as even though this does have some interesting ideas, you can Expand
  99. Jul 21, 2012
    6
    The film was good, don't get me wrong. The characters were much better, and much more likable than Raimi's version, but I feel it was too soon.

    The world is the same, the story and structure is very very similar, it terms of effects nothing has changed, and the first person shooting was quite annoying. My original score was 7 but I'm bringing it down to 6 because of the so called "3D",
    The film was good, don't get me wrong. The characters were much better, and much more likable than Raimi's version, but I feel it was too soon.

    The world is the same, the story and structure is very very similar, it terms of effects nothing has changed, and the first person shooting was quite annoying. My original score was 7 but I'm bringing it down to 6 because of the so called "3D", which just seemed to make the screen darker with no REAL added value.
    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.