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. Jul 26, 2012
    4
    FIrst ask yourself if you were satisfied with Sam Raimi\'s Spiderman Trilogy. If the answer is yes, more than likely you will find this remake completely unnecssesary. If it\'s no, you might be in luck but keep in mind this Spiderman makes little to no attempt to introduce anything new or original in terms of plot. This movie is also loaded with plotholes and multiple events that stretchFIrst ask yourself if you were satisfied with Sam Raimi\'s Spiderman Trilogy. If the answer is yes, more than likely you will find this remake completely unnecssesary. If it\'s no, you might be in luck but keep in mind this Spiderman makes little to no attempt to introduce anything new or original in terms of plot. This movie is also loaded with plotholes and multiple events that stretch whatever sense of realism this spiderman brought to the table. Good news is Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield are great! Bad news is pretty much everything else, in that this spiderman offers absolutely nothing new or interesting to the superhero. Expand
  2. Jul 8, 2012
    4
    this movie was really slow for the first hour and then it got better andrew garfield has to be the worst actor i have ever seen play spider man he acts like he is on drugs half the time
  3. Jul 4, 2012
    4
    I don't care about the reboot. This is just a tremendously mediocre movie. Incredibly poor pacing and a weak script. Shame, because all the actors are game and most of the CGI is well-done. The second half of the movie descends into the ridiculous, the characters other than Peter Parker are written so lifeless and one-note. I thought there was plenty enough to distinguish this from theI don't care about the reboot. This is just a tremendously mediocre movie. Incredibly poor pacing and a weak script. Shame, because all the actors are game and most of the CGI is well-done. The second half of the movie descends into the ridiculous, the characters other than Peter Parker are written so lifeless and one-note. I thought there was plenty enough to distinguish this from the last franchise, but I think it's very fair to compare them if you give this one a fair shake standing on its own. This movie, however, does not stand well on its own, Ironically, this one apparently stayed more true to several of the details of the comics but lacks any of the energy and wonder of a comic book. The first movie of the last series had this is spades. Just a really disappointing effort, and the first recent Marvel movie I disliked more than I liked. Expand
  4. Jul 18, 2012
    4
    What...
    This movie has to be one of THE cheesiest superhero movies I've ever seen. The beginning was nice and sophisticated, but the villian...THAT terrible villian Lizard had no characted whatsoever, and neither did Peter. He was just a worried and aggrivated teen who had anger issues after his uncle died. He was so 1-Dimensional that I even groaned loudly in theaters. The plot is what
    What...
    This movie has to be one of THE cheesiest superhero movies I've ever seen. The beginning was nice and sophisticated, but the villian...THAT terrible villian Lizard had no characted whatsoever, and neither did Peter. He was just a worried and aggrivated teen who had anger issues after his uncle died. He was so 1-Dimensional that I even groaned loudly in theaters. The plot is what really made me unconcious. The main threat is to infect the- wait this is spoiler free. Um, well, the main threat of the enemie is extremely predictable, and is a common plot that even superhero TV shows use frequently. The emotional parts in the end were also kind of a laughing stock. The action is not as bad, but it's not the most believable due to the strange CGI used on Lizard. This is only worthy to watch as a popcorn flick or as a low quality time waster, other than that, the Spider Man from 2001 is a lot batter choice.
    Expand
  5. Jul 4, 2012
    4
    Tone is all wrong. Awkward only plays effectively until the awkward situation is resolved. This movie is as awkward as the main characters who never grow out of it. This movie has no sense of fun and no sense of Spider-Man or Peter Parker. Keep asking yourself...what does this kid want...and see if you find an answer. The movie was actually boring and the most satisfying moment wasTone is all wrong. Awkward only plays effectively until the awkward situation is resolved. This movie is as awkward as the main characters who never grow out of it. This movie has no sense of fun and no sense of Spider-Man or Peter Parker. Keep asking yourself...what does this kid want...and see if you find an answer. The movie was actually boring and the most satisfying moment was watching the credits role. Even the after-credits teaser was lame. Really?? Expand
  6. Aug 21, 2013
    4
    Well, the new Peter is charming and a very simple guy, and really really amazing. Not only girls must love him, but everyone. The other actors are great too, the movie is interesting and very good but only the first half. After that the movie went bad. It reminds me of the power rangers kids series. I think there's a lot to fix in the movie story, but it's too late now.
  7. Jul 28, 2012
    4
    This movie was a lot worse than the first 3. Andrew Garfield was not a good enough nerd to be peter parker, the whole story behind lizard was very confusing, and overall, this movie was a very mediocre superhero movie reboot.
  8. Jul 7, 2012
    4
    I must say I'm disappointed. I've read a review, on one site I usually have similar opinions with, promising that it'll be an entirely different perspective on the spider man, new and refreshing, and had quite high hopes for this movie. However, it's nothing new at all, same story about becoming a hero, with all its melodramatic boring moments about dying family and so on. What's worse,I must say I'm disappointed. I've read a review, on one site I usually have similar opinions with, promising that it'll be an entirely different perspective on the spider man, new and refreshing, and had quite high hopes for this movie. However, it's nothing new at all, same story about becoming a hero, with all its melodramatic boring moments about dying family and so on. What's worse, the action is scarce and not especially entertaining. What I did like were those short 1st-person view moments, which were quite breathtaking. All in all, it's a mediocre superhero movie, which I wouldn't be afraid to miss. Expand
  9. Jul 6, 2012
    4
    What a complete disappointment. I wasn't really sure what to expect going in to the move, but it was decent at best. The graphics are really the only reason this deserves any high score. The story was so generic. It seems like his uncle dying had no effect on him what so ever. He was very **** and went right into attacks. He was not tactical at all. It felt so incredibly rushed. The storyWhat a complete disappointment. I wasn't really sure what to expect going in to the move, but it was decent at best. The graphics are really the only reason this deserves any high score. The story was so generic. It seems like his uncle dying had no effect on him what so ever. He was very **** and went right into attacks. He was not tactical at all. It felt so incredibly rushed. The story moves so quickly. He just gets the suit. It's like he pulled it out of his ass or something. This was a complete let down. The story is so generic and one-dimensional. I don't even know why they had him like cameras. They tried to make him some cool kid. He used the camera like one time and didn't use it any other time. The comedy was the only thing appealing. The fight scenes were very generic and predictable. He's a lazy, disrespectful, over-confident, teenager who happens to get abilities to climb on walls. It is also stupid how he has those little machines pushing out webs. It makes him so much more vulnerable. All you have to do is aim for those and he's as good as dead. Would not watch again. Expand
  10. Aug 3, 2012
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I'd say this movie is equivalent to Spiderman 3. I hated all the conspiracy's in it. Garfield was a joke of a Parker, but Emma Stone played an... Amazing Gwen Stacey. Expand
  11. Jul 18, 2012
    4
    Repetitive.Boring. Zzz. I saw this movie in 3d hoping the action might pop out at me... Well if I seen it in 4d I would have still fell asleep.Don't get me wrong people, but this is a supposed to be a "superhero" movie. Not a drama, love story, or an old folk tale. In video game terms...This movie has no replay value. Trying to tell the same story with less action is something I just don'tRepetitive.Boring. Zzz. I saw this movie in 3d hoping the action might pop out at me... Well if I seen it in 4d I would have still fell asleep.Don't get me wrong people, but this is a supposed to be a "superhero" movie. Not a drama, love story, or an old folk tale. In video game terms...This movie has no replay value. Trying to tell the same story with less action is something I just don't get. I like Andrew Garfield as an actor. I even like what he did with the role. But the director forgot to say Take 1... Action! Expand
  12. Oct 27, 2012
    4
    Absolutely horrible. Riddled with nauseating cliches from beginning to end. This may be the worst and most unnecessary reboot ever. There is absolutely no originality in the plot. Even the soundtrack is ridiculously annoying. I'd have thought these directors could learn from the Nolans and the Snyders on how to make good superhero movies. The only high point in this movie is Emma Stone'sAbsolutely horrible. Riddled with nauseating cliches from beginning to end. This may be the worst and most unnecessary reboot ever. There is absolutely no originality in the plot. Even the soundtrack is ridiculously annoying. I'd have thought these directors could learn from the Nolans and the Snyders on how to make good superhero movies. The only high point in this movie is Emma Stone's solid acting. Garfield tries and his moments too, I'll give him that. The CGI is absolutely horrendous. It's like they're using software from 1999. Dr. Lizard has got to be the most un-terrifying bad guy ever. The 3D gimmicks are off-point and cheesy. Really, I have no idea how this movie got into production in the first place. Biggest letdown of the year. Expand
  13. Dec 28, 2012
    4
    No, I didn't think a reboot was warranted, and nothing in the previews urged me otherwise. That said, I thought for sure they'd do a great job with it, with the track record of hero-based reboots being taken seriously and respected in the last decade. I expected to at the very least be entertained. If you can read between the lines of the above, you can understand where I'm coming fromNo, I didn't think a reboot was warranted, and nothing in the previews urged me otherwise. That said, I thought for sure they'd do a great job with it, with the track record of hero-based reboots being taken seriously and respected in the last decade. I expected to at the very least be entertained. If you can read between the lines of the above, you can understand where I'm coming from when I say I am completely dumbfounded by the consistent amount of praise I see for this adaptation. Aside from looking more sterile and overly-indulging in video game caliber CG in places where it wasn't even necessary, making films from over a decade ago look modest in their graphics work, there were nothing but issues for me. From the set designs that actually didn't require green screens to the casting, I am left scratching my head because usually when I get online to complain there are 10 other people touching upon the bases I have been running in my head. A lot of reviews praise the additional back story. If by additional back story, you mean cliche scenes of going against the grain in high school complete with jock bullies, and locker drama seen in countless other 'teen angst overcame' movies, okay...you got it. They may have spent more time in his school and very non-Parker-esque like household, but that doesn't mean the extra time spent was actually "building" on anything. It wasn't even just the CG that was over polished and sterile, but even the story lines, and even the big build up scenes. Dennis Leary seemed to be completely playing up what must've been countless people's comments telling him that he reminded them of Aaron Eckhart in Harvey Dent's shoes, and the very hard to get wrong cliches got as thin as it gets when playing up the "rich girl brings rough-around-the-edges" kid to an extreme needlessly "formal" dinner at the Stacy residence. It was a series of scenes I spent wondering if Leary was embarrassed to be rattling off the script he was given for this, as surely the fans and rest of the internet would be tearing this thing to shreds. Silly me... or have I just gone mad? An honest wonder.

    The sewer drama unfolded like the audience had the brain capacity of a 7 year old, having to blatantly have a smart kid like Parker being so thoughtless as to rig up his camera so carefully to snap the lizard's photo, then zooming right in on the back of the camera to the "property of Peter Parker" label on the back that looked like it's only purpose being stuck there was for this scene specifically, covering most of the bottom of the item, then the movie pans right up to this, spoonfeeding us this "clue" in case we missed it. There is little to no attention to detail even on such a pivitol scene (like the rest of the film) to even make the label look worn...like "oops, forgot that was even on there". Nothing subtle here...and yes, subtly does work even for a comic book movie. Other tidbits that left me biting my tongue include the scene of the spider crawling out of the bite wound, and the fact that they got away with banking on the praise they'd receive for one aspect, namely "being truer to the original, and truer to reality" by incorporating the synthetic web shooter vs. the spider's venom itself passing on web-spinning capabilities as in some variations of these stories. The rest of the movie negates this cry for credibility in every way -- nothing felt natural. I guess I've been spoiled -- most movies I sit through are concerned with all of these things so my mind doesn't even have to wander to consider picking apart things like that. Much like an ex wife who lost a divorce who is defending her meltdown, "I've grown accustomed to a certain lifestyle!" In all honesty I expected this to be good, because they had so many skeptical eyes on them for such and early reboot and a legacy to uphold or outdo, and since that has actually been achieved by others more often than before, Marvel and Co. surely would only back something that would do it justice. In that light, this 4am squinty-eyed review is one I was not expecting to write, and I would've guessed I'd be more likely to write something like this for a movie like 'Chronicle', which I enjoyed much more than I thought I would. The Amazing Spider Man turned out to be quite the table turner for me.
    Expand
  14. Jan 20, 2013
    4
    This movie is awful and i gave it 4 out of 10 just because there are some things on which i can't close my eyes and got to admit, that they're done well. But there's some many wrong choices, especially in plot. I don't want to tell like every mistake, but most irritating for me was the fact, that this movie didn't bring main topic of Spider-man's existing, this movie never told us, that:This movie is awful and i gave it 4 out of 10 just because there are some things on which i can't close my eyes and got to admit, that they're done well. But there's some many wrong choices, especially in plot. I don't want to tell like every mistake, but most irritating for me was the fact, that this movie didn't bring main topic of Spider-man's existing, this movie never told us, that: with great power, comes great responsibility. In this movie this phrase never appears, and if authors wants to tell us about that in later movies, it's a big mistake, because then this movie looks even worse and cannot live on itself, only as a part of a trilogy, and i hate that tendency. This movie creates some interesting topics and never gives us answers, just to carry for other movies. This movie must be a self-contained story, but story is not only problem. I don't like this much "edgier, dark and realistic" atmosphere. I don't like this Parker with his tight jeans and skateboard. They wanted to tell us THE OTHER STORY THAT ISN'T REALLY REVEALED but instead it's the same story and not even finished. Effects and Ema Stone only saves this movie for me. Expand
  15. Apr 11, 2013
    4
    I was a big fan of the original Spider-man trilogy (yes even Spider-man 3), and i was being optimistic in hoping that this film would introduce a new darker quality to the character and the retelling of the origin, but overall i found the film to be underwhelming, unoriginal and in some parts, just plain stupid. Firstly i must point out that Andrew Garfield did a great job of portrayingI was a big fan of the original Spider-man trilogy (yes even Spider-man 3), and i was being optimistic in hoping that this film would introduce a new darker quality to the character and the retelling of the origin, but overall i found the film to be underwhelming, unoriginal and in some parts, just plain stupid. Firstly i must point out that Andrew Garfield did a great job of portraying Peter Parker, as did Emma stone of Gwen Stacy, and they have good chemistry, but the script is not particularly thoughtful nor engaging, just classic cheeky rom-com stuff, but i guess there's nothing wrong with that, and the romance between the two is what makes this film a hit with the ladies. The Lizard on the other hand, played by Rhys Ifans, is a complete Ra's al Ghul rip off from Liam Neeson in Batman Begins, speaking in a slow wise voice and his plan to evolve the human race into raging lizards, for the benefit of the future of the planet or some crap. Much like Ra's extreme views of wiping out corruption for the the same reason. Much of the story is the same, dont be fooled, apart from the back story to peter's parents, its much like the original Spider-man of 2002. The special effects were pretty impressive but that basically meant the action sequences were hectic and cartoonish, which i guess is to capture the comic book style, but overall are boring. There are no cleverly planned out set pieces or twists in the plot, the final fight is on top of a skyscraper at night and another confrontation takes place on a bridge at night, very imaginative. This film is well made and the acting is pretty solid, and i can understand why newcomers to spiderman are loving it, but if you are familiar with Sam Raimi's trilogy and have watched a fair few superhero films like myself, you are likely to be disappointed with this film. Hopefully the sequel can find its own groove. Expand
  16. Jul 15, 2013
    4
    No me empeño en dañar las peliculas que a muchos les Gusta sino en valorar en este caso lo excelente que venia siendo Spider Man, no esta Peter Parker, es una nueva Historia un nuevo inicio a la clasica historia del hombre araña que no arranca muy bien.
  17. May 5, 2014
    4
    This film is the second worst spider man film, ok this is more kind to it source material but it is still a bad movie with a terrible vilain, but emma stone save a hole part from this film.
  18. Mar 13, 2015
    4
    A third of the movie is a mediocre remake of the 1st Spider-Man movie. Another third of the movie was a bad teenage soap opera. The few action scenes were cliche and predictable. The Lizardman looked cheesy as hell. I didn't see much humor and fun in the film like I did in Sam Rammi's Spider-Man movies. It was boring.
  19. Nov 23, 2012
    3
    A bit on the weak side I'm afraid. The movie doesn't seem to rise up from being a silly teenager flick, nerdy boy meets hot girl and then proceeds to tell her he's Spiderman. That's about it.
  20. Jul 5, 2012
    3
    I watched it, and didn't think highly of it thinking back. It felt forced. As if they were trying to follow the story and at the same time give a new perspective on everything from what most of us know of the first Spiderman a few years back. The actors and actresses used didn't always fit the parts, just didn't feel smooth enough. The movie never sucked me into it as most shows and moviesI watched it, and didn't think highly of it thinking back. It felt forced. As if they were trying to follow the story and at the same time give a new perspective on everything from what most of us know of the first Spiderman a few years back. The actors and actresses used didn't always fit the parts, just didn't feel smooth enough. The movie never sucked me into it as most shows and movies are suppose to do and most good ones do do to me. I am glad I got to see this movie at no cost. Expand
  21. Nov 21, 2012
    3
    You're going to love this movie if you're new to Spiderman and the history behind this character. If you're an old Spiderman fan, you either loved it because you love Spiderman so much or hated the movie because it did not exactly portray the origins of Spiderman and his powers, except for Uncle Bens death. For an 2 hour film it seems the movie spend most of the time showing how a guy wentYou're going to love this movie if you're new to Spiderman and the history behind this character. If you're an old Spiderman fan, you either loved it because you love Spiderman so much or hated the movie because it did not exactly portray the origins of Spiderman and his powers, except for Uncle Bens death. For an 2 hour film it seems the movie spend most of the time showing how a guy went from being the hipster d-bag at starbucks to the hipster d-bag holding a starbucks cup with super powers trying to do a kick flip in an abandon garage. Compared to the Dark Knight: Rises and the Avengers, this super hero movie is a super zero movie. I can't pathom how hard I tried to keep this movie from boring me to tears with scenes only suitable for teenagers who are going through puberty and can get off with such bland story line. Expand
  22. Oct 4, 2012
    3
    Sally Fields as aunt may just doesn't seem right... she is a great actress. but as Aunt may, I just don't see it. This movie was too drawn out and unnecessary really, I really enjoyed Tobey Maguire as spidey more-so. Not sure what to make of the suit in this movie either... Although the premise of having Gwen Stacy as his first girl friend went along with the comic book series. ISally Fields as aunt may just doesn't seem right... she is a great actress. but as Aunt may, I just don't see it. This movie was too drawn out and unnecessary really, I really enjoyed Tobey Maguire as spidey more-so. Not sure what to make of the suit in this movie either... Although the premise of having Gwen Stacy as his first girl friend went along with the comic book series. I wished we could all just agree to forget about spider-man 3 and just let Sam Raimi remake it. but this time keep venom out of it until much later on. But I would say this one is just as bad as Spider-man 3, but on the other side of the spectrum. Where Spider-man 3 tried to bite off more than Sam Raimi could chew in a single length movie. This one is the utter lack there of. Expand
  23. Jul 17, 2012
    3
    if you never saw the original movies then it might be worth seeing for some mild entertainment but in general it is a very dumb, unbelievable and badly written movie. there was no reason that i can see for this remake. the first movies were superior in every way.
  24. Jul 3, 2012
    3
    Wow. It's pretty bad. It barley held my interest. I found myself at times wishing it was over. The kid that plays spiderman has one of those faces you just want to punch...like Jamie Oliver. The tree points I gave it went to the cgi which was really good. The subplot about his parents it totally unnecessary, but maybe they have something big planned. Reminded me of a direct to dvd spiderman movie.
  25. Oct 6, 2012
    3
    no se si alguien me pueda entender pero en cierto caso "use the traslator if you want" , yo personalmente pienso que la actuacion andrew garfield, emma stone, y martin sheen fue buena, los efecto fueron buenos, y la forma de dirigir de webb es muy interesante, pero la historia de la pelicula es muy mala, en los primeros 15 minutos peter "investiga" acerca de sus padres y despues deja deno se si alguien me pueda entender pero en cierto caso "use the traslator if you want" , yo personalmente pienso que la actuacion andrew garfield, emma stone, y martin sheen fue buena, los efecto fueron buenos, y la forma de dirigir de webb es muy interesante, pero la historia de la pelicula es muy mala, en los primeros 15 minutos peter "investiga" acerca de sus padres y despues deja de hacerlo. cuando el tio ben de peter muere, peter se dedica a hacer una busqueda como si fuera krave el cazador en encontrar al asesino de su tio, y despues deja de hacerlo para buscar al lagarto que al final termina encarcelado, mala la idea. el romance fue bien al principio pero despues se hizo muy rapido, como si los escritores pensaran: vamos hacer que peter bese a la chica, le revele su identidad y que al final de la pelicula rompa con ella para que 5 minutos despues regresen a ser novios!!! no me gusto mucho que peer fuera un chico con capulla que practica skate y con un peinado al de edwar cullen, que gwen fuera fria al final, lo digo porque cuando muere su padre no se le ve triste, pero cuanto termina con peter termina llorando, el lagarto fue una basura, un hombre lagarto gigante desnudo con una cara de simio, que tenia el plan de convertir la gente en lagartos, pero que ni siquiera logra durar mas de medio dia en su estado de lagarto, ¿y que paso con la familia de connors? ¿porque flash thompson no fastidia tanto a peter como en los comics? ¿porque gwen es una chica ricachona con una familia completa? ¿porque el capitan stacey le quita la dinamica de j jameson? Expand
  26. Jul 5, 2012
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The main problem with this film is that it is to the Spiderman legacy what Superman Returns was to the Superman legacy: Pleasantly executed but completely pointless. The trailers would have you believe this film focuses on the 'untold story' of Peter Parker's background, but aside from the fact the Parker's dad was a scientist and they died in a suspicious car crash, this aspect of the film is completely wasted because it's never explored fully. You're left with the impression Parker's untold story was just a rouse to get people to come and see the film, and you can almost feel Webb's eagerness to get this out of the way so he can concentrate on the business at hand: remaking Rami's first film. So Uncle Ben gets bumped off by some unknown petty criminal again, this gives rise to Peter's sense of responsibility again (though the emotional transition is not as believable as in the Rami's movie), Peter gets his powers from a genetically modified spider again (this time just in a different location) and Peter decides he can't fulfill his love interest because of his new gig as Spiderman...again. Yes, there's mechanical web-shooters instead of biological ones, and this Peter is slightly more cool than Toby Maguire's, and we have Gwen Stacy instead of MJ. But that's about it, those are the differences you're paying your money for!

    The relationship between Garfield and Stone however does work very well; the pair have a more natural chemistry than Maguire and Dunst and that translates effortlessly, though both are far too wise and articulate to be believable as high school students.

    I know some fans like the predictability element of superhero films, but I just wish that this film would have been braver. Nolan's Batman Begins, for example, was a true origin story, offering the audience something new. This film takes no risks and as such do not be under the impression this is an origin story - it's the same film as the 2002 original but with a much less engrossing villain (even the split personality/voices in the head is copied from Rami's Goblin here) If you care about Spidey, you'll end up feeling slightly ripped off by the whole thing.
    Expand
  27. Jul 8, 2012
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Just because it is a super-hero movie does not mean it cannot be smart and this movie is not smart. I can buy that someone can get bit by a radioactive spider and get super powers because, hey, that's the suspension of belief needed for the genre. If you are not going to go along with that then best to ignore fantasy type movies all together. What I can't by is a high security building with equipment dangerous enough to gas an entire city, can allow someone in just because they have a name tag (and throw someone out because they do not). I also cannot buy that you could just wander around as you please in such a place. And most of all, I do not buy that a teenage intern can access this place whenever they please and create an antidote for a mutant virus that only just appeared, in a matter of 8 minutes. I guess she stayed at a Holiday Inn. Dumb! Expand
  28. Jul 10, 2012
    3
    This movie compared to the first Spider-man is **** you don't even have to see it, its a waste of money, Toby Maguir made a better Spider-man, The Amazing Spider-man is in my opinion the worst marvel movie yet
  29. Fin
    Jul 13, 2012
    3
    You want to waste 2 hours of your life, then watch this movie.This movie is so boring, there is almost no action into it. The development of Parker is damn weak. You should watch this movie only if you're a teen, because there's no essence in it. This movie is way worse than the Spider-Man movie of 2002, not saying that one was a good one but it was watchable.

    Simply put, don't watch it
    You want to waste 2 hours of your life, then watch this movie.This movie is so boring, there is almost no action into it. The development of Parker is damn weak. You should watch this movie only if you're a teen, because there's no essence in it. This movie is way worse than the Spider-Man movie of 2002, not saying that one was a good one but it was watchable.

    Simply put, don't watch it and you'll do something more constructing with your time
    Expand
  30. Jul 15, 2012
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I saw a lot terrible mistakes in the film esp in the last part when lizard placed his hand that was holding spider man leg on his face,terrible mistakes and acting was extremely poor.... Fun to watch but terrible things and a spider that can't cast webs on his own is just bad.. really really bad...spider is stronger than lizard and he can't beat it...just bad 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.