The Amazing Spider-Man
User Score
7.2 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1045 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 849 out of 1045
  2. Mixed: 90 out of 1045
  3. Negative: 106 out of 1045

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. JonLabudakis
    May 13, 2013
    6
    Of course this film has to measure with the older Spider-Man Films.I really like Kirsten Dunst but Emma Stone is a better actor and Andrew Garfield is very sympathetic to me and a thousand times better than Tobey Maguire.
    I cannot say that i didn`t enjoy the film.The actors are good and i like the action sequences.Sometimes there are some logical mistakes and the characters are not always     smart but it was nothing what was destroying my joy.
    The bad guy is also not the best,Very simple structured for some intelligent guy as he is but ist makes the movie not worst but also not better.
    All in all a film that you can watch when you want a good action movie which entertains you for 2 hours when you don`t wont to use your brain to much.    … Expand
  2. A_Northerner
    May 11, 2013
    8
    It is too easy to compare Marc Webb's Amazing Spider-Man to Raimi's first effort, primarily because for the first half at least they are the same film, or are at least both films telling the same story. Pages and pages have been written on the reboot debate so I won't add to them only to say that I think I enjoyed the updated take on the origin story more. The conspiracy behind Peter's parents deaths adds some complexity to the story and Peter's first experience of Spider-Man's abilities is made into an amusing sequence. Credit for that must go to Andrew Garfield, who improves on Maguire's take on Parker no end, proving that Peter can be geeky without being too pathetic. Perhaps it was setting the story in high school, with the sympathies that come with being different in that environment, that makes Garfield's Peter more likeable.

    Once the origin of Spider-Man is complete, the film moves through the gears and the budding romance and chemistry between Peter and Gwen is sincere and likeable. With a supporting cast including veterans Martin Sheen and Sally Field, there is no shortage of strong performances.

    The film is a bit heavy handed with it's vigilante right or wrong mantra and I was hugely disappointed with Rhys Ifan's Lizard. Ifan's performance as Connor's is decent enough but for me visually the Lizard didn't fit closely enough with the character's traditional appearance. Maybe it was an attempt to make the character realistic in a Christopher Nolan manner but rather than look like a lizard (with a lizards head) he looks like a generic green monster that could appear in any film.

    An enjoyable, if unnecessary, return to Spider-Man's roots with a fresh bunch of characters that is worth a watch even if just for a comparison with the original trilogy.    … Expand
  3. WhovianFantatic
    May 1, 2013
    8
    spiderman reboot was fantastic.. a great special something to look at! I loved peter and how he seemed nervous, smart and intelligent. Peter has a crush on Gwen Stacey and shes sexy.. i mean shes awesome.. shes not a damsel in distress more of the one in control and very more resourceful.. she is very good and I hope to see more of her in future installments.. the lizard is cool and I really enjoyed the look and feel of new york. spiderman is back and better than ever!… Expand
  4. Scorpion
    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
  5. kaceejones1978
    Apr 24, 2013
    9
    This reboot of the Spider-Man franchise delivers with a strong performance by Andrew Garfield as the lead character, and big names in some of the other supporting roles. Acting great Martin Sheen, host of the Breakthroughs with Martin Sheen show, gives a strong performance as usual, in the role of Uncle Ben. Denis Leary, better known as a comedian than an actor, also shines as the father of Peter Parker’s love interest.

    It’s great to see well-established actors and thespians, like Sheen and Sally Field, who plays Aunt May, share the screen with up-and-coming actors like Garfield and Emma Stone, who plays Gwen Stacy. The young stars hold their own with these heavyweights, and show that they belong. Although Sheen does not appear in as many movies these days as he did in his heyday, he shows the talent that has helped him remain in show business since the early 1960s. These days, Sheen hosts the Breakthroughs Martin Sheen show, and also appeared in a movie directed by his son Emilio Estevez called “The Way.”

    The Martin Sheen Breakthroughs show examines positive and intriguing stories across American society. It airs on public television stations across the nation, including some PBS-affiliated stations. The Martin Sheen PBS program (www.breakthroughsptv.com) looks at medical subjects, environmental topics, business stories and more. The Martin Sheen public television program looks at education stories as well.

    Hopefully, the producers and director of the sequel to this entertaining and enjoyable movie can bring back all the principal actors and actresses for the sequel.    … Expand
  6. Duskspark
    Apr 20, 2013
    9
    Does "The Amazing Spider-Man" do anything new to movies? Well, no. But the genres that exist are all in there. The movie has its moments of humor, horror, romance, action, adventure, thriller, it has simply everything, and the way they used all that to make a superhero movie is simply one of the best ways they could use it.
  7. TheDeakin
    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 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
  8. AmazingKnight
    Apr 8, 2013
    10
    The Amazing Spider-Man is the Spider-Man film that we were all waiting to see. It has a fantastic cast that all give great performances, a great score to accompany it, and great action sequences that can only be put as simply: amazing.
  9. survivorfan989
    Mar 31, 2013
    9
    This is a solid reboot of a rather recent series of films that probably didn't need to be done so soon, but it has been done very well. Andrew Garfield is great as the new Peter Parker and overall it's a great cast! Storyline is similar to how the other series starts out but things change here and there. MJ is no more but Gwen is in the leading lady role played by the gorgeous Emma Stone who does a great job! Overall it's nothing but entertainment and quite enjoyable to watch … Expand
  10. sil3nt_nick
    Mar 24, 2013
    10
    I was hesitant to see this movie, as the ones done in the early 2000's were exceptional. This version did not disappointing me, showing the early life of Peter Parker that was based more closely on the comics than the original that starred Tobey McGuire.
  11. Roadrunner90
    Mar 16, 2013
    9
    The Amazing Spider-Man directed by Marc Webb is a fantastic reboot to the Spider-Man franchise. Despite having a similar plot line to Sam Raimi's 2002 Spider-Man, Webb's interpretation created a darker and more serious tone that established a story arc. Starting with the cast, Andrew Garfield's portrayal of Peter Parker did well to show the struggles of not only losing his uncle but not knowing the fate of his parents. We see that with Tobey Maguire's performance but it is eclipsed by the lighter tone of the 2002 movie. Garfield's portrayal also has more chemistry with his primary love interest, providing for a more intimate and youthful subplot complementing the already mentioned dark tone. Kirsten Dunst's performance resembled a summer blockbuster aimed at teenagers. Despite the common view that Raimi used a better supporting cast with James Franco, William Dafoe, and JK Simmons, it is very difficult to ignore the on screen presence of Sally Field, Martin Sheen, Rhys Ifans, and Denis Leary. One standout performance that was not mentioned was that of Irrfan Khan. Though he does not have a lot of screen time, Khan's performance added to the tone and complemented Dr. Connors transformation into the Lizard. The CGA and visual effects do provide for thrilling and captivating viewing experience but since the two movies were made a decade apart, it is difficult to praise one over the other owing to the vast advances in computer technology. One visual aspect that the comic fan base debates is the suit. The Raimi suit had a very strong resemblance to the comic and cartoon series. Webb's artistic team provided a new suit that allowed Spider-Man to look more athletic and agile. The darker toned fabric with a worn surface gave it a more realistic look. The only major mystery that created a plot hole was how does a high school kid create such a suit on his own in his bedroom. Overall "The Amazing Spider-Man" was a pleasurable film that undoubtedly surpassed its 2002 counterpart. The cast along with the plot and the visual presentation generated the interest and anticipation for a sequel.… Expand
  12. BrianMcCritic
    Mar 15, 2013
    8
    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.
  13. Amardeep
    Mar 10, 2013
    8
    It has all element a good entertaining superhero movie needs. A good plot with nice performances. Its more thought provoking than Sam Raimi's Spider-Man.
  14. ns0l
    Mar 10, 2013
    4
    Well, the new Peter is charming and a very simple guy, and really really amazing. Not only the girls will love him, but everyone. The other actors are great too, the movie is exciting and very good but only at the first half, then the movie went bad and 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.
  15. StevenF
    Mar 6, 2013
    8
    That was fast.. this reboot, that is, Sony are now bound to hold the record for the quickest franchise reboot in history, and many may now ask, did Spider-Man need a brand new set of films?
    Personally, no. The last film in the original trilogy starring Tobey Maguire and directed by Sam Raimi was a mess to say the least, but Iron Man 2 was a bit of a shambles, it didn't get a reboot.
    Alth    ough it is clear that there wasn't much necessity to restart this superhero, thats not to say this isn't a good film, because its actually a great film, with a few inkling flaws that stick out, but this tells an excellent origin story that the original never did.
    New director Marc Webb tells an interesting story here, he goes right back to basics with our hero Peter Parker being left by his parents to his Aunt May (Sally Field) and Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) after a interestingly vague opening, thus sets a motion many mysterious and unexplained events that will truly hold you to enjoy this film.
    We are then introduced to an older Peter, (played by Andrew Garfield) who brings a new sense of spirit and light-hearted,pop-cultured nature to the role. He longs after Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone) who is in his class and who is also working at Oscorp, where Peter is then bitten by a genetically modified spider, he then realises that he has incorporated superhuman abilities and uses them to his advantage. Working at Oscorp also is Dr. Curt Connors, who is attempting to re-grow is amputated arm by combining genes, with disastrous results.
    When tragedy strikes, Peter seeks revenge, now donning a custom-made spidey suit. He soon attracts attention to himself through the police and of course Dr Connors, and as he continues to explore his abilities, he shows his emotional attachment to Gwen.
    This love story is Webb's strongest point of the film, not just between Gwen and Peter, but the overall reaction to situations within the film, it feels more real and life-like and brings the movie in a different direction than its predecessors. The one low point has to be the pacing of the story, as it never seems to be told as a stand alone film, it always seems to be building to something we, the viewer know we won't see in this film, whether its unanswered questions or unexplained plot developments that are not acted upon, it always seems that, 'yeah, we're gonna leave that to the sequel'...why? Why not tell the story now and develop later?
    But this aside, it has excellent acting in the form of the two young leads, and a strangely enjoyable emotional depth that Marc Webb delivers with excellent confidence, perhaps not a mind-blowing reboot, but certainly an excellent restoration of the franchise.    … Expand
  16. Pahn
    Mar 3, 2013
    1
    I just don't get it. The Spider Man trilogy started in 2002, and now we already have a reboot? Man, can't wait until this superhero fad dies off and never comes back.
  17. oblique15
    Mar 2, 2013
    10
    Amazing Spider Man? I agree!!!!! This was way better than the Dancing spider man on the other version! I loved it! It felt much more realistic, it`s more like the new batman series! The story, the action, everything was good. I usually hate the romance scenes since every movie feels they need one, but I can in this movie it blended in with no problem. This is the best super hero movie that I can think of after "Batman" of course.… Expand
  18. slashblood131
    Mar 2, 2013
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Amazing Spiderman, what do I think of this movie, it's... AMAZING! Let's start off with the pros of this movie. First, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone's acting. I found the perfect performance of Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy. They show how they are both excellent actors because they show their romance for each other on screen well, they execute their scenes perfectly and adding a better relationship. I really like this acting. Another pro of this movie is the special effects. Spiderman and the Lizard have never looked better on screen in the school scene and the Oscorp scene etc. Since both those scenes were shot with CGI, this makes Spiderman and Lizard look amazing as I've said. More on the effects, when Spiderman web swings, the CGI blends so well together, I actually wished there were more scenes of Spidey web slinging. Next, director Marc Webb made a great mash-up of Comedy, Drama and Action together and I really loved how they gave Dr.Connors a split personality like Sam Raimi did with Norman Osborn and the Green Goblin. Finally, the crew have mad sure to follow the storyline correctly which is amazing because I loved Spiderman for 9 years. Now onto the cons of the movie. The suit development was short. We all know that Peter is a smart guy so making the suit was the one way to show his intelligence. But it went by so quickly it left the audience with little development. Next. the Lizard's writing. The character feels so bland because you didn't get to know him well. If Dr.Connors/Lizard was more deeply explored, he would've been a lot more likeable even though I did like his character. Finally,The quote "With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility". It was paraphrased but I would've preferred it to be said in those exact words. But wait there some more things I want to talk about. I found some really awesome scenes in this movie like the gang fight in the alley, the school scene with Spiderman and The Lizard etc. Also the movie had a bit of a dard tone to it and I don't make The Amazing Spiderman look like Batman because a lot of other movies are dark but it's not Batman all over again. My final verdict is a 9.5 out of 10. The cons listed held this movie back from being a 10 out of 10 but it was still fun and entertaining.… Expand
  19. adamSv94
    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.
  20. nightsharks23
    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
  21. DKS01
    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
  22. sanyrub
    Feb 15, 2013
    8
    Totally enjoyable. Funny and warm. Best thing is the new actor playing Spider-man/Peter Parker: Andrew Garfield is sensational. It feels more real than Tobey McGuire playing the part. Rest of the cast is really good too. Overall the acting is better than in the previous trilogy. Another good point is the soundtrack, really nice. Some of the special effects are amazing, others not that much. Probably the weakest point is the plot once the lizard starts his plan. It´s obvious they eliminated too many scenes and some things didn´t make sense. I suppose they didn´t want to make the movie longer than what it is (2 hours). People interested can see the deleted scenes in the dvd release. It really helps. The movie has a little touch of realism compared to the previous trilogy and it´s certainly appreciated. The upcoming second part is really promising with this director and actors.… Expand
  23. psyprbsfan1
    Feb 6, 2013
    0
    andrew garfield does not play garfield the THIS
    0/10000000000000000000000 DONT BOTHER WATCHING
  24. Paul55donovan
    Feb 5, 2013
    8
    A well acted action packed superhero film that makes this well needed a reboot a success. This new storyline proves that we will see Peter Parker's teenage years and will show a bigger development in the story than a huge jump from high school-er to photographer.
  25. ninja_dolphin
    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. 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
  26. Rox22
    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 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
  27. sundaygrundle
    Jan 27, 2013
    7
    It
  28. Annoymous1
    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.
  29. JohnLemon
    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: 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
  30. worleyjamers
    Jan 15, 2013
    6
    I still don't think this movie needed to be made, but I honestly didn't care so long as it was a good film; The Amazing Spider-Man is a good film. Sure, it covers some familiar territory, but it also adds/changes some aspects of the story which is much appreciated; it stands on its own and is more than capable of sustaining another franchise for a while longer. Andrew Garfield is a very solid and likable Peter/Spider-Man (as well as a solid actor), and Emma Stone is great as well; their fantastic chemistry is what drives this film. Rhys Ifans is an adequate villain, but he's underwhelming to say the least. I look forward to the sequel and potential future Marvel collaborations.… Expand
  31. EDJET787
    Jan 5, 2013
    6
    Out of all the 2012 superhero movies, this one was my least favorite and a big disappointment. I was hyped for two years for this and went to the midnight release and The Amazing Spider-Man at times was great and other times when it was complete trash. The positives though go to the well chosen cast, they were all great and I enjoyed each of the scenes they were in. Unfortunately this movie loses serious points because this is the most rushed movie I watched in my life. There are so many scenes that had potential but aren't just ruined, they are destroyed by editing, that's where I start getting fumigated. There are a lot of plots that lead to no where, so theres more points taken off. The Lizard is also a wasted villain with no special back story or meaning to the character, it felt like he was just thrown in there. This movie isn't bad, but it surely ain't amazing, so far this is not a good start for a reboot, and I think Sony is to blame for a lot of the problems in this movie. I recommend this for any Spider-Man fan, but I can't guarantee you'll love it.… Expand
  32. imthenoob
    Jan 3, 2013
    8
    So much better then the original Spider Man. Garfield fits perfectly as Peter Parker, The rest of the cast is solid as well, The story is more loyal to the comic books. It's simply an enjoyable movie.
  33. brunogabriele
    Dec 29, 2012
    9
    Well, I really loved it. I wasn't keen on these Marvel heroes like Spider-man or Hulk, but I liked this movie, and it attracted me. I just wanted to keep on watching. I also like when things are realistic.
  34. pyxis
    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 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
  35. suneater
    Dec 27, 2012
    1
    One of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. My brothers saw this in the theatre and were singing praises about it so of course one of them got it for Christmas. Every once in a while my brothers will recommend a good movie to see (The Avengers, The Good, The Bad & The Ugly, etc.) and then they'll recommend crap like this and it just cements my theory that they'll watch anything that shows up on the TV screen. This movie has no redeeming values and is a complete retread of a superior movie that is only TEN years old. The directing is awful, pushing a dazed spiderman who can't act through scenes & events that feel like they are being checked off of a list. The camera work is boring, feeling like it was shot from all tripods & steadycams. The acting is non-existent except for Martin Sheen (who I feel bad for being stuck in this poor excuse for a movie) and most of the characters come off as jerks. If there are any non-stunt SFX, I didn't notice them... I guess the $230m budget went into filming in LA & NYC because for a superhero movie this is really bland. Everything about this predictable, copycat of a movie is a direct downgrade from the 2002 version and has no merits of it's own. Do not waste your time with this and do not support Hollywood's obsession with "remakes".… Expand
  36. HenryCase
    Dec 25, 2012
    8
    I'm not a Spider-Man fanboy for life, but I have some pretty average background with the franchise. I loved the Amazing Spider-Man Animations Series of the 90s and also own a bunch of Spider-Man comic books. What I can say is, that this movie reminds me much more on the memories and style and story of the Spider-Man I know from my childhood than the last Trilogy by Raimi (which I didn't like that much). A lot of people seem to dislike the new movie, but in my eyes it is far superior to the raimi-trilogy when it comes to lore, comic-book feeling and 80s / 90s atmosphere. But maybe I'm not the best reference as I tend to dislike a lot of modern superhero movies.… Expand
  37. anshiman
    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 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
  38. teflontactics
    Dec 10, 2012
    8
    This was a worth while reboot. The original Spiderman suffered from a cartoonish undertone, and horrid acting from most of the main cast. The few good things about it were crushed by its played out take on the whole thing.

    What does this movie have that the other doesn't? Adult jokes, better explanation of his back story, and better acting. I really hope that they make a sequel.
  39. Bestpony
    Dec 9, 2012
    6
    It's a dumb, predictable popcorn flick where every scene has a painfully obvious meaning and you always know what's going to happen next. I hate that kind of cinema but the funny thing is, the action here is actually thrilling (the crane scene was amazing!), the added psychological depth makes Parker a compelling character, and, perhaps most importantly, Garfield totally nails it. There are worse ways to spend two hours.… Expand
  40. Lambo442
    Dec 9, 2012
    9
    A superb Spidey film, as good as Spiderman 1+2 I thought, if not a little better. Just an all round good film and exactly what you want it to be. The 'web shooting machines (can't be bothered to google technical term) on his wrists are a geeky and therefore pleasurable addition. How couldn't you enjoy seeing a pink flash every time he fires a web?
  41. Jac648
    Dec 1, 2012
    8
    I didn't see this movie in theaters because I thought it wouldn't be that good, but boy was I wrong! The only part I didn't like was when Dr.Connors peeled away the casing on his new arm. That literally scarred me for life...but that's just me!
  42. WriteFilmLive21
    Nov 30, 2012
    6
    Under the engaging direction of Marc Webb, "The Amazing Spider-Man" is an intimate and energetic reboot of Sam Raimi's original blockbuster trilogy, and for sharing so many similarities to the first film, it stands on its own very well and is impressively refreshing. Andrew Garfield puts forth a more relatable, complex and yet simpler Peter Parker - he's **** and egotistical when he has the upper hand early on, yet also delivers the emotional sobriety during the more serious and dire moments, and overall delivers a very solid performance as a teenager taking on these enormous new powers. The chemistry between him and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is perhaps the biggest improvement - where the MJ/Peter plot in Raimi's trilogy grew tired out and soap opera-ish, here the romance is tangible and very authentic. The film also has some very nice emotional moments, particularly near the end, that lends it some dramatic credence it might have been lacking until then. However, the action scenes are not nearly as fun as Raimi's, and even during the climax they don't seem to carry much tension or suspense - which doesn't mix well with the otherwise darker and more serious treatment - and a couple of moments that should be emotional heavyweights are treated with surprising briskness. Overall, it's a very solid and enjoyable reboot, but so far Raimi's trilogy is still the better Spider-Man.… Expand
  43. Gamer44
    Nov 30, 2012
    10
    This is by far the best spider man movie yet.Never thought a reboot of spider man would be 10 times better than the first spider man movie.Maybe it was the story line of the first spider man movie that made me fall asleep or could it have been the acting of Toby Maguire that made me hate Spider man 1,2 and 3. so when saw the trailer for the amazing spider man I truly thought this could probably be the worst spider man movie ever made.But never judge a book by it's cover or in this case never judge a movie by it's cover the amazing spider man is easily one of this year's best movies in my books.Glad I did not judge the movie by reading the other reviews given by other users on this website.Just have to say again the amazing spider man movie is the best one yet and I truly hope there could be sequel's if the amazing spider man so good who knows how good the sequel's could be.… Expand
  44. armandothegreat
    Nov 29, 2012
    9
    This movie was surprising in a good way - much better than I'd expected. It's far better than the last two Spiderman movies, and even though they re-do the Spiderman origin story I liked the way it was done in this movie much better than the original movie. This is regardless of the comic book series. Sometimes the original stories from comic books don't carry over well for modern movies so I think the story was well done to accommodate both movie fans and original comic book fans.… Expand
  45. Bruce722
    Nov 29, 2012
    9
    This was an outstanding movie and, in my opinion, better than the Spider-Man films of a decade ago. I enjoy the way Andrew Garfield portrays the Peter Parker character much more than Toby McGuire. He is not such a dweeb, is more charismatic, wittier, and just a better actor in general. And thank you to whoever decided to use Emma Stone as the romantic/love interest. Not only is she one of the best young actresses in Hollywood but she is absolutely stunning. Much more believable for the role of the beautiful "damsel in distress" than Kirsten Dunst. I'm sorry but I am not a fan of Dunst and don't understand why people find her attractive. I also thought the rest of the cast was great. Denis Leary and Martin Sheen almost stole the show. The director also made the physics more realistic. With the exception of a football bending a goal post in half, the physics felt more authentic throughout, not only the combat but also just the gliding through the city shooting out webs. I also liked the plot development. I had a friend mention how they prolonged the "origin" too much for his tastes but I actually enjoyed that a lot. If they are making this into a trilogy, there's plenty of time for Spider-Man moments but you can never come back and capture the beginning stages of the superhero and the person behind the mask. Ultimately, the only thing that held this movie back for me was that it felt like we've seen it before. Other than some minor alterations to the story and obviously different actors, this was very similar to the one a decade ago and more than anything, it FELT like the older one. I thought it was better but not by much, mainly because it had the same overall feel and tone. I would've much rather had them take the Spider-Man story they had here and made it a little darker and more intense and dramatic. There is plenty of potential there but they don't take advantage of it. Instead, you essentially have yet another little kid/teenager superhero movie. Out of all of the superhero movies being made, it's definitely the least mature of them and that holds it back for me. Give Christopher Nolan this story and he'll make it amazing.… Expand
  46. Compi24
    Nov 28, 2012
    8
    A great cast, and solid directing headline the many merits of this exceptionally entertaining, but slightly extraneous reboot.
  47. dragonbillz
    Nov 28, 2012
    5
    I felt like I was watching a repeat of a story told not long ago. I feel like there was no need to reboot this story. My kids were watching this movie with me and they were familiar with the Spider Man story as well. I felt the movie fell short at some points and we were bored waiting for the next action scene to come along. I think there was too much focus on Peter Parkers backstory and love interest. Usually when you do a reboot there have been major advances in technology and you can use this to tell the story better thru technology. I felt like the first Spiderman gave you more excitement when Spidey was swinging thru the city of New York at lightning speeds and bouncing off walls. I think the first film was better.… Expand
  48. Tokyochuchu
    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.
  49. aznassassin
    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, 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
  50. agagil
    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.
  51. PulseEnder
    Nov 23, 2012
    9
    The Amazing Spider-Man is the amazing reboot to Spider-Man. Andrew Garfield plays a believable Peter Parker, as many nerds can relate to his emotions and his lifestyle. Plot(no spoilers): The Amazing Spider-Man gives audiences the back story behind the mysterious disappearance of Peter's parents. One day when Peter stumbles upon his father's old briefcase, his life changes forever. Many signficant changes to his ordinary lifestyle include his new relationship with fellow classmate, Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone); To the murder of his beloved fatherlike Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen). Ultimately, these are nothing compared to the mutated spider bite which gives him Spider like powers such as sticking to walls and great reflexes. As he becomes thankful for his powers, he accquires a relevation that makes him want to become much more, The Amazing Spider-Man, keeping the streets of New York clean. Along the way however, he becomes a part time lab partner with Oscorp Industry's Dr. Connors (Rhys Ifans) working towards the better health of mankind. However when Connors injects himself with the untested regenerative antidote, he becomes The Lizard and is a potential threat to the well being of New York. As Peter realizes his part in The Lizard's creation, he believes it is his responsiblility to make sure he doesn't harm any civilians. My opinion: the CGI was top notch and the acting combined with the story is enough to make any audience feel for the emotions Peter experiences throughout his lifechanging story. Comparison to Spider Man: A decent number of scenes, lines, and story plot are quite similar in terms of his origin story, and his family life. However The Green Goblin and The Lizard have completely different motives as antagonists, however they both have similar origins. I would recommend this to anyone, especially those who have never fully experienced a live-action Spider-Man movie, and to those who are die hard fans… Expand
  52. Artomoz
    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 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
  53. VidsRule
    Nov 21, 2012
    10
    I don't know what it is, I've scene this 3 times and the first I thought it was a great superhero movie, the second I thought it was something more. Something that mixes music and visuals to create a very meaning full experience. And the third I found it truly and full-blown emotional experience. Again, the music and important moments as well as the ending created the most meaningfull superhero movie yet. It was awesome.… Expand
  54. 00Liteyear
    Nov 18, 2012
    5
    Spiderman at his worst. It was like Twilight trying to become a super hero movie. Gwen Stacy's only importance was that she worked at a top secret laboratory, despite being a high schooler. Her role as a love interest seemed very forced because she didn't help Spiderman get stronger at all. Heavy emphasis on how cool Uncle Ben is was over done because it took nearly half of the movie for him to die, which shows how much it dragged on for. Aunt May is a withering grandma who only wants eggs, a joke that excuses Peter Parker from telling her anything that goes on in his life. Dr Connors is a desperate in-debt scientist whose role is to be a Spiderman's personal problem because Peter gave him the formula to be a lizard; absolutely no style. And Peter Parker himself, a cool skateboarding high schooler who gets beat up only because he stands up for others; nothing nerdy about it. When he's Spiderman, he seems very weak. Gets shot in the leg and can barely walk; Gets surrounded by a bunch of thugs and runs away. Marc Webb's directing is very straightforward, which is good for his other movies, but not for this first action movie. Viewers should take note that most of Spiderman is viewed in the dark, perhaps for Webb to push a darker theme for Spiderman. However, Spiderman isn't Batman, and Spiderman's Personal/Hero life really isn't as complicated. Raimi, please come back.… Expand
  55. birdman3
    Nov 14, 2012
    8
    The original spiderman movies are some of my favorites of all time, so how does this one measure up? It's a good movie that does certain things well (the fight scenes and choreography are fantastic- I believe they are just as good as in the original films), but I feel that Peter Parker is less likeable than he should have been. The movie just isn't as compelling as the originals. As was expected, many of the plot lines are left unraveled by the end of the movie (in fact, no plot lines are wrapped up at all in the course of the movie), so let's hope that we can get some answers soon- otherwise most of this one is just a bunch of cryptic mumbo-jumbo.… Expand
  56. Jkames
    Nov 14, 2012
    8
    A great movie with quite a few plot holes that keep it from being amazing. The action is really captivating, the drama between the characters is interesting. The film keeps with the comics quite a bit which is nice for a change. You have a credible enemy who is a decent match for a hero who is just coming into his powers. Glaring plot holes at the beginning of the movie loses the movie points. What also loses points is the campy ending which is coherent yet lacks total believability in the circumstances. It's a fun and enjoyable movie.… Expand
  57. DTDunn
    Nov 14, 2012
    5
    An entertaining film, but about a subject matter than has been done perhaps one too many times. My spidey-sense tells me they need to give this franchise a long rest.
  58. bosnian
    Nov 12, 2012
    5
    Far from perfect (or Spiderman 2), but not bad either (like Spiderman 3). Everything seems to work well, there is just nothing exceptional. Decent summer movie.
  59. tallmanwriting
    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.
  60. Boba
    Nov 11, 2012
    9
    I thought another Spiderman movie would be a waste. I was pleasantly surprised. Sally Fields &I Martin Sheen brought credibility to the story line. The actingand special effects kept my attention throughout the movie.
  61. Garian
    Nov 10, 2012
    9
    This was a great movie, despite what people have been saying that 'Its just another spiderman film' well, they are right, it is, but thats just it, all spiderman films have been brilliant and given the spectator a very great feeling at the end of it, just as I had during, and at the end of it. There were a few very minor errors I noticed, so minor that I can't even fully remember them, overall, it was an 'amazing' film.… Expand
  62. TheQuietGamer
    Nov 10, 2012
    9
    When I first heard about this reboot I wasn't looking forward to it at all. I expected it to suck, after I saw that they changed Spidey's suit I was sure they were going to ruin Spider-Man, but after seeing the movie I'm proud to say that it's fantastic. Yeah they changed the suit, and while I'm still not cool with it I have to admit it's not a bad looking suit. They did add a few more elements from the comics this time around. Peter is a high-schooler, has web-shooters this time around, and Gwen Stacy is the love interest this time around, and they all make the movie feel fresh. It's the same origin story we saw in the first Spider-Man movie back in 2002, but they manage to make their own changes to these familiar scenes to make them different rather than a complete retread. A big addition to the series is the mystery behind Peter's parents, which is something I can't wait to see where they take it. The movie is fantastic and Spidey fans will not be disappointed, however it does have some flaws, they left out Spider-Man's spider sense, and didn't include the classic "With great power comes great responsibility". While leaving out Spidey's spider sense isn't really a big deal at all, just noticeable (and to be honest I really didn't miss it), the fact that they left out those powerful words from Peter's Uncle Ben (at least in my opinion) is horrible and never should have happened. Even with it's flaws I loved every second of this movie, and can't wait to see where they take it from here.… Expand
  63. cameronmorewood
    Nov 5, 2012
    6
    An interesting new take on the Spiderman franchise. I like the way this film gives us a feel for who Peter Parker is as a person by taking us through his past and then introducing the key characters that make up his life in the present.
  64. lahaine2012
    Nov 4, 2012
    5
    The Amazing Spider-man was an almost decent summer flick, which seemed as if it could possibly surpass the original Spider-man films. It did for some parts, but ultimately collapsed by the end. I must admit, this adaptation of Spider-man was a friskier and wittier one, which moves at a clip; and Peter Parker's scientific ingenuity and sharp comic sense are well fleshed out. Marc Webb (of (500) Days of Summer) knows how to direct romantic elements which is possibly the films high point, even more so than the action sequences which were uncreative and gravely disappointing. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy replacing Mary-Jane) can be considered improvements of their predecessors. And though it was a fun watch, and the beautifully dizzying cinematography and effects kept me glued, I can't help but feel a great sense of Deja vu. Seeing that the original film ended only a few years ago, why bother with a remake? It didn't break new ground nor radically set itself apart from the original, so why bother? This was simply rehash that didn… Expand
  65. Smee
    Oct 28, 2012
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. what a waste of movie? Tobie still the greatest Actor who ever played both spider man and peter parker role.Who open door in a restricted lab ,so any one can go there and be a spider man how lame is that ?… Expand
  66. nilerafter24
    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'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
  67. Friskytiger81
    Oct 25, 2012
    5
    In an industry full of unnecessary actions, the decision to revamp "Spider-man" not a decade since the redeux was first redone reeks of greed to the point of making this unenjoyable. Yes, it'd be better than "Spider-man" if only it were made before it, but it wasn't. This is more realistic, less involved in the comic-book character, and more in our world. Yes still, after a new Batman, "Spider-man" feels irrelevant.… Expand
  68. pcgamereviewer
    Oct 24, 2012
    10
    Unlike the original triology movies, actually follows and doesn't spit on, Stan Lee's created universe! That's about all I can say about this movie other than it having a much better cast too - each actor looks and plays the roles much better than the predecessors - without a doubt about it!
  69. Seriosity
    Oct 22, 2012
    7
    It has no real surprises, but still quite enjoyable if only to see the differences between this and the original. The cast is good, chemistry between Garfield and Stone in particular. Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben was another standout, and the dynamic that came about from blue-collar Ben and nerdy Peter Parker was interesting. The soundtrack isn't amazing, but it does bolster the impact of many scenes. The CGI on the lizard is well-done and the action scenes between him and Spider-Man are thrilling. The web swinging as a whole are fun, especially given how practical each swing seems. I had a few minor problems with the film. The dialogue is not always the freshest or the most interesting. As a result, the pacing is a little sluggish Here is where it hurts that the origin has already been shown before since the mystery and intrigue is all gone. Also, the villain is pretty underdeveloped and when he reveals his plan at the end, I was disappointed. All in all, not as good as the first Spider-Man, but very enjoyable and shows significant promise for better sequels to come.… Expand
  70. ectobioligist
    Oct 10, 2012
    10
    This movie is truly Amazing. It sucks you into the story, and creates realistic and relate-able characters. While some users here might say the first half was boring, I heavily disagree. The first half does nothing but develop characters, establish important plot points, and reel you into a semi-realistic action/tragedy/comedy story-line. This movie, in terms of acting, is leagues ahead of the classic trilogy, and does not at ALL sound "forced". Now while I can respect what the original actors tried to do, they just didn't deliver as greatly as Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, and all of the other actors did. This movie is simply phenomenal, and I can, without question, call it my favorite super-hero movie of all time. Here's to hoping that the sequel will be even more amazing. Great work, Marc Webb.… Expand
  71. sanlu
    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 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
  72. neowiz73
    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. 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
  73. TheAddict
    Oct 1, 2012
    2
    Worst Spiderman movie. Ever. End of story.
    Whoever wrote this movie's plot (I don't even want to know his name) should be ashamed. I can only feel disappointed in all the people that actually went to see the movie. It's just so terrible. Almost nothing new or relevant is revealed. I'm surprised nobody sued these people. The acting is a bit childish, and the cheesy romance played by Andrew     and Emma is like a new version of Twilight, and I think I speak in name of all people when I say we don't want another Twilight. If you haven't seen this movie so far, then you've done good.… Expand
  74. visageends98
    Sep 27, 2012
    9
    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 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
  75. Halfwelshman
    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 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
  76. Rikiege
    Sep 23, 2012
    3
    The worst movie and marvel that ever seen! This film does nothing more than fill scenes without inportancia (leftover). The biggest star of the movie is boredom.
  77. TheOnlineGamer
    Sep 17, 2012
    10
    Best Spider-man movie so far! The acting,special effects,Villain were all great and I can't wait to see the Green Goblin in the next movie. This will probably go down as one of the greatest movie franchises if they keep up the standard. 10/10
  78. Happymonk
    Sep 5, 2012
    8
    The Amazing Spiderman might just about live up to it's name. It is a definite step up from the stuffy Spiderman 3, but I don't think it quite reached the heights of Spiderman 1 and 2. The plot is similar to that of Spiderman 1, but it doesn't suffer because of this: as it moves along at quite a brisk pace to lead into Spidey's climatic battle with the Lizard. The Lizard was a good choice for the movie, as many people would not have heard of him before, but he is not quite distinguished enough from the Green Goblin for my liking (even though he is a different character his themes and actions are slightly too similar to those of the Green Goblin in Spiderman 1). The acting is good all round, and Andrew Gafield's Spiderman seems closer to the source material than Tobey Maguire's, pulling one-liners from every direction and appears more awkward as a person, which is a good thing. Now that they've got the back story over with they can really focus on a very exciting sequel, which I am very much looking forward in anticipation, 83/100.… Expand
  79. Tonyintucson
    Sep 3, 2012
    0
    I want my money back. The only thing impressive about this movie was indeed the special effects. Awesome! But that certainly doesn't make up for some of the worst acting, the lamest story and the most annoying actors ever. I hated this movie. It was not the best Spiderman ever. It wasn't the best anything. It was horrible and unoriginal in every way. And I'm shocked that Sally Field would have anything to do with this trash.… Expand
  80. mrmonster
    Sep 2, 2012
    10
    What could have been done to make the movie better? Absolutely nothing. The Amazing Spider-man is a fantastic movie, the best movie in months, and the best superhero movie since The Avengers. It was even better than Chronicle. My point is, The Amazing Spider-man was a great movie that you should see immediately.
  81. ichiro
    Aug 29, 2012
    9
    Firs of all, it's a good Spiderman movie. Don't compare it to the other ones, because it's stupid - this is amazing Spiderman. Andrew Garfield played a pretty good role, so did Emma Stone - I was really surprised. It had a good plot. And Spiderman was how he should be, always making fun of his enemies and everything. It was great movie for me. Although I liked the first Spiderman movie better. But this is a new movie, and it's a new Spiderman and it's a good one.… Expand
  82. antony123
    Aug 25, 2012
    2
    This is not spiderman..... a very bad and boring movie
    The previous was not good but far away better than this one. Hopefully it will end here and no trilogy come out
  83. riferrari
    Aug 21, 2012
    9
    I expected less from this movie, but it was well made and deep and I'm willing to rewatch it. The Amazing Spider-Man is very entertaining and there isn't anything really bad about it
  84. starscream97
    Aug 20, 2012
    9
    After the atrocity that was spider man 3 i didn't know what to expect from this one. Not only can I safely say that this redeems itself for that steaming pile of pig s**t I can also say that this is a great super hero movie in its own right and in my opinion is better than The Dark Knight Rises. (But not quite as good as The Avengers, The Dark Knight or Spider Man 2)
  85. Hfahmy
    Aug 14, 2012
    5
    Nothing new. Replica of the previous Spider Man. He falls in love with a girl he can never marry, his mentor is killed again, but spider man didn't catch the killer this time. The fight is against his father co-researcher, who tries to find a formula to restore lost organs as he is one handed, but instead the formula changes him into a monstrous lizard who kills and destroys. A war flares between spider man and this monster. Nothing special, spider man wins at the last moment, his girl father dies and urges him to leave his daughter, needless to say, his girl father is the chief officer in charge of arresting spider man. Poor scenario, traditional plot, well done picture taking and scenes. Anyhow, must see movie, not genuinely entertaining though.… Expand
  86. vini1904
    Aug 14, 2012
    10
    An excellent film, creative, good acting, great storyline and a good dose of emotion. The hero comes very close to human, he makes mistakes, gets hurt, suffering, one of the best films of the spider.
  87. btzneb92
    Aug 12, 2012
    5
    I'm sorry, but the reboot just didn't work for me at all. The story was just all over the place, and it moved so slowly. I understand that they were going for a character piece here, but they're focusing too much on every plotline that it's just hard to hold on too. Also, I know they're trying to go on a more darker approach to the Spider-Man storyline, but another main reason for Spider-Man's appeal to audiences is the wonder and joy of discovering and using these powers, and it's utterly lacking in this movie. Yes, there's some humor on Peter using the powers for the first time, but it's hardly wonder. And Jesus, the new Spidey costume sucks. Andrew Garfield was pretty good as Peter Parker though. Oh well. Hopefully they learned from their mistakes in time for the second movie in 2014.… Expand
  88. Moviebuffreview
    Aug 11, 2012
    10
    Amazing is an understatement. As a Spider-Man fan, I have waited for my whole life to get the true definitive Spider-Man movie, and I have finally gotten it. Wonderful performances, thrilling action, incredible screen writing, perfect humor, and fantastic character arcs make Spider-Man one of the most entertaining, and personal, comic book movies of all time. This is a fantastic movie, one that everyone should see.… Expand
  89. JTKelley
    Aug 10, 2012
    6
    Quality direction and cast counterbalance a lackluster script and a lack of differentiation from the 2002 film. While it's slightly better than its predecessor, the film isn't good enough to justify its own existence.
  90. DeadlyScream87
    Aug 10, 2012
    10
    A true origin movie!!! The actors are much better and it goes much more in depth with the story of Spiderman. Get ready, because when this DVD comes out throw out those horrendous Toby McGuire Spiderman movies and make space for the real Spiderman!!!
  91. Darian
    Aug 10, 2012
    8
    While Sam Raimi's earlier version was more poignant, I think I prefer this latest incarnation in terms of the cast, choreography, and overall production.
  92. lasttimeisaw
    Aug 8, 2012
    6
    Watched a 2D version in the cinema, and now the aftertaste is quite irony since the redux deliberately put an
  93. Super8mm
    Aug 8, 2012
    8
    Being a fan of the old Spiderman movies i was curious as to how this one would turn out. Once I heard that Andrew Garfiled was going to be Spiderman I got excited. His performance in The Social Network was Amazing. Also Marc Webb the director of 500 days of Summer which I loved directed this film, and Emma Stone is playing Gwen Stacey, so far this movie looks great. Then I saw it and was blown away. The acting was great, and the chemistry between Andrew and Emma was awesome, The special effects were brilliant, and it was a great spin on Spiderman which I loved. Many people find it different from the original. But it's suppossed to be different, its a reboot, not a remake. Why would you want to watch the same movie twice. Anyway this movie was very entertaining and I loved it.… Expand
  94. Demorase
    Aug 6, 2012
    10
    Realistically, this movie probably isn't worth more than a 7, mainly because of the redundancy with the first Spider-man movie. Yes, The Amazing Spider-man promised us an "untold story", but turns out it was just false promises, it ends up being an almost copy of the first film, just improved. The biggest improvement it brings to the table is the romance, or should I say the love interest. Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy was a joy, she was an actual character that could stand on her own and not just a pretty prize like Mary Jane in the original trilogy. The interactions between her and Peter were really cute too (also great chemistry between the two actors), you get the feel they were partners supporting each other, which you didn't get at all in the Raimi trilogy, Mary Jane was more of a burden on Peter than anything else. It's simply put the best romance I've seen in any superhero movies to date. Special effects were pretty good too, especially Spider-man swinging, and the pacing was very good, I was never bored or wondering what was the point of a scene any time during the film. The weakest point of the movie was the villain though, he came across as very cartoony (and frankly stupid) which really clashed with the otherwise realistic interactions between the characters, his plan wasn't very smart either. Ultimately, this movie suffers from not departing enough from the original movie, which depending on how much you like the character, or how fresh the original is in your mind, may or may not be a problem. For me it just wasn't but I can see how it could be for some. Overall though this is still a very solid superhero movie in my opinion.… Expand
  95. larsen16
    Aug 5, 2012
    9
    my roomate's step-mother brought in $15301 last month. she has been making cash on the computer and moved in a $482100 condo. All she did was get fortunate and put into work the information given on this web NuttyRich.com
  96. Sorry15
    Aug 5, 2012
    8
    ,,The Amazing Spider-Man'' is a new, fresh look over the friendly neighbourhood. Garfield fills the shoes of Spidey very good, the romance is well made, but maybe a little too teen drama, the script is almost amazing and the visuals and soundtrack are just perfect to integrate the viewer in the universe of Spidey.
  97. Parallax
    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
  98. byates_101
    Aug 3, 2012
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Tis movie isn't amazing but it is one of the best of the spiderman movies. there are some memorable moments but thre are some ridiculous scenes, like the scene with the construction workers giving spiderman a lift. the cgi wasn't the best but it was still good. The movie dragged a little and the lizard shared similarities to the 2002 Spidermans Green Goblin in an overall score.
    Story-7
    Cast-8
    Sound-8
    Animation-6
    total-8/10
    Great    … Expand
  99. jwt7000
    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.
  100. ulrichlyoko94
    Aug 2, 2012
    10
    Best Spider-Man yet. The younger casting of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone paid off big time! They were much more believable in their roles than the Spider-Man franchise has ever given us. Though the villain was not that exciting, this is the first superhero movie that I've ever seen that I honestly want to see again. Usually the genre is a little boring to me, but this movie is top-notch.
prev
Page:

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
66 out of 100

Generally favorable reviews - based on 42 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 29 out of 42
  2. Mixed: 11 out of 42
  3. Negative: 2 out of 42
  1. Slate
    Reviewed by: Dana Stevens
    Jul 5, 2012
    70
    This might be a fun summer blockbuster if only it even remotely needed to exist.
    Read full review
  2. Austin Chronicle
    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.
    Read full review
  3. Time Out New York
    Reviewed by: Joshua Rothkopf
    Jul 3, 2012
    60
    On the whole, it's passable stuff, a surprise, given how mechanical the masked character seemed.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »