Columbia Pictures | Release Date: July 3, 2012
7.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1692 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,180
Mixed:
345
Negative:
167
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
7
quincytheodoreJul 9, 2012
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 itProving 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
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
7
KenmeiJul 14, 2012
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 GwenThis 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
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
7
TheDarkSoulJul 22, 2012
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 inAn 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
nascentSep 29, 2015
Surprising good film. Despite re-covering stuff that was already handled well in Rami's Spiderman, this has good actors, decent action, especially for the heavily cgi stuff, and an interesting plot. I'm glad it had a different villain to theSurprising good film. Despite re-covering stuff that was already handled well in Rami's Spiderman, this has good actors, decent action, especially for the heavily cgi stuff, and an interesting plot. I'm glad it had a different villain to the previous trilogy, and that it was handled well.

The most notable difference from this film and the Rami films, is that there is a strong emphasis on Peter Parker as a brilliant scientist, and also his web shooter devices. While it's strange that we must accept he can walk on walls and stick to anything, but has to bio-engineer an impossibly fantastic weapon that does the web shooting for him, I understand this is more in line with the comics, and so thus needs to be appreciated, even if suspension of disbelief takes one too many hits.

I think the biggest flaw of this film is it's release so close the the Rami films, which really made superhero films what they are today. As everyone knows this was mostly a film to retain the Spidermany Rights, and thus had to be made when it was, but in an ideal world this would've been made at a much later date, to better distance itself from Rami's trilogy.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Critic2012Jul 16, 2012
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 themThe 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
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
7
faridikJul 9, 2012
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 budgetİf 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
4 of 7 users found this helpful43
All this user's reviews
7
aznassassinNov 24, 2012
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 anPresents 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Tall_But_ShortJul 3, 2012
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 aFive 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
8 of 12 users found this helpful84
All this user's reviews
7
ROMshinobiJul 13, 2012
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 interestingThis 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
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
metabaconJul 13, 2012
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 ofFirst 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
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
gregthreetJul 8, 2012
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'tThe 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
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
Arcturus_RannJul 22, 2012
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 theSolid 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
RdmanJul 3, 2012
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 peopleDifferent 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 Expand
4 of 9 users found this helpful45
All this user's reviews
7
spartan8330Jul 4, 2012
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 areStayed 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. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
emngraJul 4, 2012
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 aIt 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
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
raulJul 8, 2012
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
2 of 5 users found this helpful23
All this user's reviews
7
reddave2Jul 11, 2012
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 setsWhile 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
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
b3_Jul 14, 2012
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 teen7/10 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
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
7
dMoviezzzJul 17, 2012
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 SpidermanSpiderman 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... Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
7
ReubenIsAGodMay 4, 2014
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 theirVery 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
poeaJul 23, 2012
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." MostMost 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
blue-ninjaDec 14, 2013
Amazing Spider-Man is truly amazing movie superhero, if i can compare with sam raimi movie, the different look in costume, story, character, by the way i enjoy watch this movies...so entertaining...can't wait the sequel...good job Marc Webb
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
visageends98Sep 27, 2012
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 ofThis 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
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
All this user's reviews
7
Jack97Dec 24, 2016
Spider-Man has the quips and sarcastic sense of humor that was missing from the Sam Raimi films, making him a more likable hero here. Add in the excitement and great visuals you expect from a comic-book movie and you got a solid, entertainingSpider-Man has the quips and sarcastic sense of humor that was missing from the Sam Raimi films, making him a more likable hero here. Add in the excitement and great visuals you expect from a comic-book movie and you got a solid, entertaining experience. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
SwatiJul 29, 2013
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 theWell 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Rox22Jan 31, 2013
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 theIt 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
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
7
Annoymous1Jan 23, 2013
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 wouldIts 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
nightsharks23Feb 28, 2013
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
ninja_dolphinFeb 3, 2013
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.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. 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
adamSv94Feb 28, 2013
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 outIt'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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews