Read Mixed User Reviews for The Amazing Spider-Man

6

tellmikeyyJul 27, 2022

Andrew Garfield delivers one of the best portrayals of Spider-Man but not the best version of Peter Parker. Wasn’t the biggest fan of his shy-can’t finish words- lines but his intelligence, wit & charm worked well. Movie didn’t really flow atAndrew Garfield delivers one of the best portrayals of Spider-Man but not the best version of Peter Parker. Wasn’t the biggest fan of his shy-can’t finish words- lines but his intelligence, wit & charm worked well. Movie didn’t really flow at times & there are certain personalities and plot points I would have done differently. Fighting sequences are great, score is good, Gwen/Peter dynamic is iconic & Lizard is pretty decent as the villain.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

kyle20ellisMar 17, 2022

That said though, from personal opinion The Amazing Spider-Man was not a bad film, or at least nowhere near as bad as has been said(again personal opinion), but it doesn't live up to its name. For me, the first two Sam Raimi Spider-Man filmsThat said though, from personal opinion The Amazing Spider-Man was not a bad film, or at least nowhere near as bad as has been said(again personal opinion), but it doesn't live up to its name. For me, the first two Sam Raimi Spider-Man films are better, and while Spider-Man did plod and had too many villains all but one of which were underused personally it wasn't that bad. The Amazing Spider-Man did have things to like, it is very stylishly made and has some very impressive special effects, even if the Lizard takes some getting used to. The action sequences- of which there are a lot in the second half- mostly are exciting with some cool stunts(the one exception is the climax which seemed like it was played and written too safe) and very creative use of Spider-Man's powers, and there are some parts in the story that work, the dynamic between Peter and Uncle Ben is really quite emotionally powerful, the romance between Peter and Gwen is somewhat sweet and the part where Spider-Man saves the little boy is tense and heart-felt. It was also very intriguing with the mystery of Peter's parents which was done quite well. The performances on the whole are also good, Sally Field and especially Martin Sheen are great as Aunt May and Uncle Ben, and Emma Stone is a charming and amusing Gwen. Rhys Ifans does bring some creepiness to Curt Connors/The Lizard if not the tragedy(the writing didn't help him though) and Denis Leary is delightful in how churlish he is. On the whole too there is some good chemistry between the actors. I never really warmed to Andrew Garfield though, he did seem too quirky for Peter complete with some forced humour and wasn't enough of a nerd, he wasn't a whole lot better as Spider-Man either, he had charisma but did come across as rather smug and not brooding enough for such a serious tone to the story here. Irrfan Kahn's performance and his character is little more than an extended cameo, not very much to work with and Kahn does little with it. The story does have its fair share of well-done moments but does suffer from an over-familiarity that feels like a more seriously toned rehash and uneven pacing, sluggish in the first half and while much better rushed in some of the second half. The script is never terrible nor is it ever exceptional, there are sweet and emotional moments as well as tense ones but too much of the humour is forced and it interferes with the serious tone. James Horner's score is nowhere near among his best, some of it pedestrian, some of it over-the-top, neither of which Danny Elfman's scoring had. And the film really rushed Connors'/Lizard's character arc, there was real potential for him to be a multi-layered character but here he came across as a one-dimensional villain with no real motivation. Overall, watchable but not close to being amazing. 5.5/10 Bethany Cox… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

DarkwingSchmuckMar 12, 2022

This watchable, but ultimately misguided reboot of Spider-Man chooses to remake Sam Raimi's original film with the tone and style of Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins. However, Spider-Man is not Batman, and this more realistic, melodramaticThis watchable, but ultimately misguided reboot of Spider-Man chooses to remake Sam Raimi's original film with the tone and style of Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins. However, Spider-Man is not Batman, and this more realistic, melodramatic tone clashes terribly when there's a giant green lizard-man on screen. Still, its two leads do share some strong chemistry, even if Andrew Garfield doesn't quite measure up as everyone's favorite friendly neighborhood Spider-Man.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

JJ2FAS4UDec 30, 2021

----------------------------------6.3/10-----------------------------------

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

ChanekeCholoDec 13, 2021

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The first half was so uncomfortable to watch and it lack a lot of development to that iconic moments of Spider-Man. The second half was a little bit good, it has a couple of good scene, like the scene in the rooftop with Gwen, the fight in the school and when the command officer take his mask off, and that's it.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

MrPajamasSep 26, 2020

Amazing Spider-Man is a reboot of the series and surprisingly quite hilarious, although Andrew Garfield didn't do nearly as good a job here as Tobey Maguire. The story is good and the negative is beautifully crafted in terms of CGI. I'm notAmazing Spider-Man is a reboot of the series and surprisingly quite hilarious, although Andrew Garfield didn't do nearly as good a job here as Tobey Maguire. The story is good and the negative is beautifully crafted in terms of CGI. I'm not going to lie that I'd rather this never came about and I'd rather be for Raider's Spider-Man 4, but otherwise it's a good movie that I can recommend.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

Sarian263Mar 15, 2021

Looking back at this movie, There's just some things here which compared to what came before it and what has come since, makes you wonder just why this movie and its sequel was ever made. Don't get me wrong, it isn't all bad. Andrew GarfieldLooking back at this movie, There's just some things here which compared to what came before it and what has come since, makes you wonder just why this movie and its sequel was ever made. Don't get me wrong, it isn't all bad. Andrew Garfield I personally felt was a good Peter Parker/Spider-Man and the story wasn't bad. This Spider-Man movie felt more like a comic book movie than maybe what the previous trilogy in the series had done. And I am all for that. But comparing it now to what we have gotten since this movie came out and looking back at what came before hand, makes me wonder why this movie even exists. If your really curious and want to see some new enemies from the classic comics then by all means give it a go, but it isn't a movie I would personally watch again.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

Mar3148VMar 14, 2021

Ludicrous. What a waste of amazing talent.

Except Tony Perkins Junior as the Human Spider.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

DCosloff1999Jan 24, 2021

I didn't like this reboot I really had a hard time moving on from the Raimi Trilogy. To me, Peter's arc was Great Power No Responsibility There are a few things in there that feels unearned. I do love Gwen Stacy and Flash Thompson in thisI didn't like this reboot I really had a hard time moving on from the Raimi Trilogy. To me, Peter's arc was Great Power No Responsibility There are a few things in there that feels unearned. I do love Gwen Stacy and Flash Thompson in this movie. Flash Thompson was a real character in this movie than just a bully. I really do love the lizard he was terrifying. I hated the suit. To this day I can't let that feeling go. It's not comicbook accurate. I think they should've used Ultimate Spider-Man as the source material.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

Onlyclassicvg1Dec 30, 2020

Fantastic movie! It kept my attention from beginning to end, which is hard to do for a movie that is over 2 hours long! The story was the best ever for Spider-Man, and everything was easy to understand and follow. Intense action sequences…

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

Dovakinxr7Aug 21, 2020

O filme tem bons efeitos especiais,romance do filme é bom, tia may é a melhor que eu já vi dos filmes do Homem-Aranha.
O filme falha no Homem-Aranha que está descolado demais(skatetista e tudo mais) e o roteiro achei bem abaixo do esperado.O filme tem bons efeitos especiais,romance do filme é bom, tia may é a melhor que eu já vi dos filmes do Homem-Aranha.
O filme falha no Homem-Aranha que está descolado demais(skatetista e tudo mais) e o roteiro achei bem abaixo do esperado.
Basicamente o filme todo é bem mediano sabe? Nada de UAU e nem de TERRÍVEL...Fiquei meio decepcionado, mas seria mentira dizer que o filme é ruim, ele apenas foi abaixo do esperado.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

ShkvyapotapokJun 19, 2020

There is no development of the protagonist, events do not affect him at all, he is an egoist, he thinks only of himself, his girlfriend is a dummy, not a character, he’s just a doll that is needed only for the plot to work. Development inThere is no development of the protagonist, events do not affect him at all, he is an egoist, he thinks only of himself, his girlfriend is a dummy, not a character, he’s just a doll that is needed only for the plot to work. Development in terms of how the character develops. Regardless of who he is or whether his fans know, the character must always develop. Based on the events that occurred earlier - the character must come to some conclusions, conclusions and other things. Garfield Spider does not. And this is the main minus of the whole film. It is essentially useless.

All events did not teach the hero anything. Any film should teach the protagonist something. In our case, this is responsibility. It is clear that no one would repeat the ending of the film Raimi. But one could dodge. One way or another, the hero must come to something in the end. As I understand it, they were planning to teach Parker responsibility in the second part. But this is a bad decision, because it completely depreciates the entire first film, because, as I said earlier, the character has not learned anything, therefore this film is not needed. It turns out that the first film was wasted.

The film did not go to me because of the ending. Because she depreciates everything that happened in the film before her. The hero did not learn anything, the events of the film went to nothing, both for him and the viewer. That's all. The film itself, to the end, is not bad. The ending spoils everything.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

MurphyBrandonSep 15, 2019

The movie is not completely terrible, but Tobey Maguire and Tom Holland are both better as Spiderman than Andrew Garfield.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

rubinowabrukiewAug 20, 2019

The culmination of Raimi's trilogy was the biggest box office hit in the history of Spider-Man's adventures. However, it did not convince a director of previous films to continue the series. Sony decided to reboot. And here at the beginning IThe culmination of Raimi's trilogy was the biggest box office hit in the history of Spider-Man's adventures. However, it did not convince a director of previous films to continue the series. Sony decided to reboot. And here at the beginning I will say that I am a supporter of reboots, I always give a chance to fresh visions of new creators. The problem is that Marc Webb's idea was not innovative in any way, the guy shot completely the same as his predecessor, introducing minor changes and at the same time the lack of consistency between the following events. The theme of the mysterious death of Parker's parents is badly done (more time has been devoted to it in the sequel, but it's not a compensation, it's a proof of lack of sense in presenting it in the first installment). Andrew Garfield in the lead role is the total opposite of the figure presented by Tobey Maguir a decade earlier. He is a popular guy at school, who's got chicks, skateboarding and always has control of the situation. It's a denial of a comic book character that doesn't even work in the within the framework of this particular film. Originally, Peter Parker lost his uncle Ben due to, among other things, bad use of his powers, which results in after all, the essence of being Spider-Man, because "with great power comes great responsibility". Here Peter simply does not use his skills for any purpose. In turn these actually good elements of the newer genesis, which do not bring shame to production, are mechanical web shooters. The affair is outlined quite a bit just like the old one, brought to the forefront and damn tiring. The Lizard has a good timing, but is still accompanied by CGI making, that great action scenes lose their quality because in my opinion they are visually closer to one of Michael Bay's ninja turtles than opponent for Spider-Man.
As a result, the "Amazing Spider-Man" is a more consistent production than that of the "Amazing Spider-Man 2", but it's still soulless and boring story.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

Freddie2004Jul 22, 2019

The Amazing Spider-Man- A slow and dark reboot of the comical Sam Raimi trilogy that succeeds in bringing an interesting origin story but undoubtedly fails in the final 3rd act on providing a compelling final showdown between Peter and theThe Amazing Spider-Man- A slow and dark reboot of the comical Sam Raimi trilogy that succeeds in bringing an interesting origin story but undoubtedly fails in the final 3rd act on providing a compelling final showdown between Peter and the poorly designed Lizard.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

TyranianApr 7, 2019

Decent attempt at this iconic character with strong visuals and acting but less strong writing.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

DerekReideApr 7, 2019

Here's what I have to say to the Sony ruined franchise. It's watchable, but it's bad.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

BrunoVn00Mar 31, 2019

Why did this movie exist? It is a soulless product obviously made just to keep the movie rights to Spider-Man away from the hands of Marvel Studios. The Bad:
-This is a pointless movie that basically tells the exact same story as the firstWhy did this movie exist? It is a soulless product obviously made just to keep the movie rights to Spider-Man away from the hands of Marvel Studios. The Bad:
-This is a pointless movie that basically tells the exact same story as the first Sam Raimi Spider-Man, just switch MJ with Gwen, switch the Green Goblin, an Oscorp scientist that tests his experiment on himself and becomes the bad guy, with the Lizard, an Oscorp scientist that tests his experiment on himself and becomes the bad guy. Then at the end Spider-Man fights the bad guy, Spider-Man wins (this isn't a spoiler, ain't that obvious?)and you know the rest. This movie was marketed as "the untold Spider-Man story" and the only thing untold is the story of Peter's parents but really that is just pointless.
-This is a tonally inconsistent movie. This was marketed as a dark, "realistic" movie, like this tried to be like the Dark Knight I guess, but that doesn't fit with Spider-Man's character. Yes, fans praise that this new Spider-Man is now more comic book-accurate than Tobey's Spider-Man as now he says cheesy one-liners when fighting, but, that doesn't fit the tone this movie tries to give! So some parts tried to be dark, but then it becomes silly and cheesy and so on.
-Andrew Garfield doesn't fit the nerdy, socially awkward personality that Peter Parker is generally known for. The movie tries for a while make him look like he's that way but it just doesn't work. Garfield is a competent actor but he's not a good fit for the character.
-The villain is weak and has no motivation and he looks dumb as the Lizard. He's not memorable, he's not intimidating, he's just nothing.

The Good:
-The scenes between Gwen and Peter are actually pretty well written and acted, that's expected from the director of 500 Days of Summer, don't you think?

It's not a terrible movie but it doesn't come close to be as good as the original trilogy. Hope the sequel is better and hopefully doesn't somehow make the worst elements of this movie even worse...Oh wait...… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

OnaskOct 21, 2018

Película entretenida, sin más. No marca ni un antes ni un después en el personaje ni mucho menos. Un villano y un Spider-Man decentes. Peter Parker y Gwen son bastante infumables, especialmente el primero (que de repente es un tipo guapo yPelícula entretenida, sin más. No marca ni un antes ni un después en el personaje ni mucho menos. Un villano y un Spider-Man decentes. Peter Parker y Gwen son bastante infumables, especialmente el primero (que de repente es un tipo guapo y guay que hace cosas de tipo guapo y guay).

Te intenta hacer soltar la lagrimilla al final de manera desastrosa, pero perdonable.

Recomendada para pasar el rato.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

bimmybob2001Aug 3, 2018

I thought Andrew Garfield did his best, and I even liked some of the Action in the Film. but my Biggest Problem with htis film is that it just Rehashes a lot of things from the Sam Raimi movies. the Director even said before the Films releaseI thought Andrew Garfield did his best, and I even liked some of the Action in the Film. but my Biggest Problem with htis film is that it just Rehashes a lot of things from the Sam Raimi movies. the Director even said before the Films release that they were doing something new.....which they did Not. also the Villain should've been Improved… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

Max_SpideyApr 24, 2018

[PT-BR] The Amazing Spider-man é um filme "ok", a origem do personagem ficou decente, temos uma boa interpretação de personagens clássicos, como a Tia May e Gwen Stacy.
O Peter Parker interpretado por Andrew Garfield não me agradou tanto,[PT-BR] The Amazing Spider-man é um filme "ok", a origem do personagem ficou decente, temos uma boa interpretação de personagens clássicos, como a Tia May e Gwen Stacy.
O Peter Parker interpretado por Andrew Garfield não me agradou tanto, talvez por eu gostar mais do jeito nerd do Peter(igual ao Peter das HQs clássicas)do que o do Peter um pouco mais descolado(HQs ultimate), o vilão é o Lagarto, que eu não é um bom vilão, seria muito melhor adicionarem uma mulher e um filho ao Connors, assim ele tendo uma maior profundidade e o Peter tendo o peso em sua consciência de não machucar seu amigo Connors.
A trilha sonora não tem o mesmo tom heróico que existe na trilogia de Sam Raimi, porém ainda sim é boa.
As cenas de ação são boas,e o filme contém um bom CGI.
Para um reboot que eu não esperava muita coisa, até que o filme não saiu tão ruim, porém a sua sequência...… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

ourtimehascomeMar 3, 2017

Bloated in its misunderstanding of the source material. Garfield and Stone are enjoyable as Parker and Stacy, which makes the rest of the film somewhat bearable. Overwrought with nonsensical expository information, and the characterization ofBloated in its misunderstanding of the source material. Garfield and Stone are enjoyable as Parker and Stacy, which makes the rest of the film somewhat bearable. Overwrought with nonsensical expository information, and the characterization of Peter Parker is ridiculous. He's a bookworm and outcast, yet he dresses like a skater from the 90's. Though the romance is believable, the bullying is not. Characters are one-dimensional. The sound design is outright laughable and I expected more from Webb's directorial debut. It's difficult to imagine a world in which the lizard's CGI is considered acceptable.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

5

CinemaphileJul 29, 2016

Serial Comic Book Cinema, the genre de jour, is entering its fourth decade of popularity. Much like the Westerns of the 50's, present day studios greenlight any superhero project that aims at the Summer demographic sweet spot and that canSerial Comic Book Cinema, the genre de jour, is entering its fourth decade of popularity. Much like the Westerns of the 50's, present day studios greenlight any superhero project that aims at the Summer demographic sweet spot and that can also be linked to toy and fast food merchandising. Unlike its muddled plot, the raison d'être for The Amazing Spiderman is crystal clear, Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios wanted to return to the Spiderman revenue well.

While Warner Bros and Christopher Nolan successfully reinvented the Dark Knight, sophomore director Marc Webb fails to accomplish the same with the Web Slinger. Webb's not so amazing Spiderman does capture the frenetic angst of adolescence, but like some teens, this film doesn't know who it is or what it wants to be. Webb's incarnation of Spidey succeeds best as a teen romance; Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone's chemistry are The Amazing Spiderman's only redeeming quality. However, spot-on casting and clever banter cannot save this film from itself.

In contrast to Sam Raimi's Spiderman, Webb's is darker, gorier and more violent, i.e. more Nolanesque. Webb's biggest mistake is that he doesn't fully commit to the newest incarnation, retaining Peter Parker's smart-alec quippage and furnishing the obligatory hyperbolically mad pseudo-scientist bent on molding New York in his own image. Yes, we get to see Curt "The Lizard" Connors on the silver screen for the first time, but we've seen this formula dozens of times. To add insult to injury, it's hardly been 10 years since the first Spider-flick, yet we're subjected to the retelling of Spiderman's origin for no apparent reason other than to give Peter Parker parents and link Peter's transformation to that of Connors'. Derivation from the source material in any media is acceptable, but with one caveat - it should be original and insightful. Again, this is where the solid performances of Martin Sheen and Sally Field must bail out this foundering enterprise. Despite the rehash of Peter Parker having to learn responsibility the hard way, Garfield, Sheen and Field are compelling enough to make the retelling barely palatable.

Mildly entertaining as it is, I cannot recommend that you spend good money to see this film. Wait for cable or broadcast television.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

aadityamudharApr 18, 2016

I loved it and hated it at the same time. I don't think it was as good as Spider-Man or Spider-Man 2...Spider Man 3 sucked, so it was better than that one. I think if you're going to reboot a series so soon, you should only do it if theI loved it and hated it at the same time. I don't think it was as good as Spider-Man or Spider-Man 2...Spider Man 3 sucked, so it was better than that one. I think if you're going to reboot a series so soon, you should only do it if the former sucked and needed to be redone. I don't think the 2002 Spider-Man needed to be redone. I'm all for more Spider-Man movies with a new actor in a new universe, that's just fine, but 75% of this movie was just his origin story that we just saw in 2002 Spider-Man. I was just sitting there thinking "yeah, I know, move on already" for 90 minutes. Yeah, a few details were different...I think they could have changed more. I could also tell that this movie was very geared towards teenagers and the MTV crowd, and that made it seem stupid to me. The Twilight preview before the movie didn't help. Neither did the girls screaming "woo" in the theatre when Peter and Gwen kissed. Please. I also HATE cheesy 3D tricks, and this movie ended with the stupidest "this would look cool in 3D!" trick ever. It it so stupid and cheesy and not quality cinema. I don't give a crap about 3D! I just want to see a movie with real characters and a story, not watch Spider-Man shoot a web right at my face just because it would look cool in 3D. So enough venting, there were things I liked. One thing I did like was that they did a more humorous take on Spider-Man. This one definitely was funnier that the previous series. They also were obviously going for a more realistic character, as even as Spider-Man he was still clumsy, and his climbing and jumping was more human and less overdone with CGI. They also allowed the suit to look like real clothing, and not digitally enhanced. You could see wrinkles and I think even a zipper. How "perfect" the spidey suit always looked in the previous movies always bugged me. So, I kind of liked the new one, even though it seemed unpolished, since that's what they were going for. Overall it was entertaining and worth seeing, but most of the movie was unnecessary and redundant.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

ReelViews94Mar 23, 2016

Where to go with Spider-Man? That's the billion dollar question that has plagued Sony Pictures. One of their flagship franchises, Spider-Man is a proven money-maker that could not be allowed to lie fallow simply because the creative engineWhere to go with Spider-Man? That's the billion dollar question that has plagued Sony Pictures. One of their flagship franchises, Spider-Man is a proven money-maker that could not be allowed to lie fallow simply because the creative engine ran out of fuel. One could argue that, over the span of three pictures - 2002's Spider-Man, 2004's Spider-Man 2, and 2007's Spider-Man 3 - Sam Raimi took the character as far as he could go. In fact, the third film in that series might have been one too many. When it came time to develop a fourth installment, Raimi departed over "creative differences" and Sony was left with a movie that needed to go forward but no driver behind the wheel. So they followed what has become an accepted approach in Hollywood: when in doubt, remake and reboot. So, a mere ten years after Raimi brought one of Marvel's most respected titles to the screen, that vision has been scrapped for a modification. The Amazing Spider-Man isn't sufficiently different from the 2002 movie to make it interesting and it ignores two major seismic shifts that have rocked the superhero genre since then: Nolan's Batman trilogy and The Avengers. Both of those have made it almost impossible for something with the limited ambition and lazy writing of The Amazing Spider-Man to satisfy. Oh, there's little doubt it will be deemed a success on a business level, and die-hard fans of the comic book will probably respond favorably, but there's something inherently depressing about what this movie says about the state of summer blockbusters in general and superhero movies in particular. Namely, how can audiences respond to something that offers no more than a re-telling of a story we have seen done at least as well so recently?

The Amazing Spider-Man provides a regurgitation of the title character's origin story, as if we couldn't remember it from ten years ago. There was a simple elegance and charming naiveté to the way Raimi presented the story. Yes, the suspension of disbelief curve was high but that's a given with a superhero movie. Here, the matter is complicated by sloppy screenwriting. In addition to swallowing the fact that a spider bite from a "super spider" can imbue Peter Parker with powers, you have to accept that the guy is a master thief. After all, he breaks into the inner sanctum of a top secret genetic research think tank with only a fake I.D. badge. It's random, repeated acts of stupidity like this that damage the movie's ability to establish its own fragile pseudo-reality. The viewer accepts a lot of impossibilities in a superhero movie, but there are limits.

The first half of The Amazing Spider-Man is almost a point-by-point remake of Spider-Man. Let's go through the checklist. Peter is shown to be a nerd in school. Check. Peter gets bitten by a radioactive spider. Check. Peter feels sick then wakes up with new powers. Check. Peter explores his new powers in selfish ways. Check. Uncle Ben gives Peter a lecture about how "with great power comes great responsibility" (although he doesn't use those exact words this time around). Check. Uncle Ben is murdered as a result of Peter's inaction. Check. And so forth... It's a little like hearing an inelegant cover of a familiar song.

The second half replicates the rhythms of Spider-Man with a different villain. This time, it's The Lizard (Rhys Ifans) instead of The Green Goblin. They're largely interchangeable and the final battle is different primarily because the special effects are better. Really, though, after having watched Spider-Man fight The Goblin, Doctor Octopus, Sandman, and Venom, what more can be done with these generic battles? As well executed as they are by director Marc Webb (making his tent-pole debut after previously helming 500 Days of Summer), there's a repetitive quality that is perhaps unavoidable. The Avengers changed the game when it comes to superhero smackdowns and, because The Amazing Spider-Man is unable to ascend to that level, the fight scenes seem a little quaint and one-dimensional.

In all fairness to Webb, most of The Amazing Spider-Man's flaws are not his doing - they come from the screenplay. His direction is assured and his handling of the special effects is smooth. The romance has its share of cute moments and there are some effective dramatic exchanges. Another point worth mentioning relates to James Horner's bombastic score, which includes yet another instance of self-cannibalization.

For me, this is as deflating a movie as I have seen all year. Not the worst, to be sure, but a project so utterly unnecessary that it made me want to gnash my teeth in frustration.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

Cinemassacre94Mar 20, 2016

Where to go with Spider-Man? That's the billion dollar question that has plagued Sony Pictures. One of their flagship franchises, Spider-Man is a proven money-maker that could not be allowed to lie fallow simply because the creative engineWhere to go with Spider-Man? That's the billion dollar question that has plagued Sony Pictures. One of their flagship franchises, Spider-Man is a proven money-maker that could not be allowed to lie fallow simply because the creative engine ran out of fuel. One could argue that, over the span of three pictures - 2002's Spider-Man, 2004's Spider-Man 2, and 2007's Spider-Man 3 - Sam Raimi took the character as far as he could go. In fact, the third film in that series might have been one too many. When it came time to develop a fourth installment, Raimi departed over "creative differences" and Sony was left with a movie that needed to go forward but no driver behind the wheel. So they followed what has become an accepted approach in Hollywood: when in doubt, remake and reboot. So, a mere ten years after Raimi brought one of Marvel's most respected titles to the screen, that vision has been scrapped for a modification. The Amazing Spider-Man isn't sufficiently different from the 2002 movie to make it interesting and it ignores two major seismic shifts that have rocked the superhero genre since then: Nolan's Batman trilogy and The Avengers. Both of those have made it almost impossible for something with the limited ambition and lazy writing of The Amazing Spider-Man to satisfy. Oh, there's little doubt it will be deemed a success on a business level, and die-hard fans of the comic book will probably respond favorably, but there's something inherently depressing about what this movie says about the state of summer blockbusters in general and superhero movies in particular. Namely, how can audiences respond to something that offers no more than a re-telling of a story we have seen done at least as well so recently?

The Amazing Spider-Man provides a regurgitation of the title character's origin story, as if we couldn't remember it from ten years ago. There was a simple elegance and charming naiveté to the way Raimi presented the story. Yes, the suspension of disbelief curve was high but that's a given with a superhero movie. Here, the matter is complicated by sloppy screenwriting. In addition to swallowing the fact that a spider bite from a "super spider" can imbue Peter Parker with powers, you have to accept that the guy is a master thief. After all, he breaks into the inner sanctum of a top secret genetic research think tank with only a fake I.D. badge. It's random, repeated acts of stupidity like this that damage the movie's ability to establish its own fragile pseudo-reality. The viewer accepts a lot of impossibilities in a superhero movie, but there are limits.

Tobey Maguire has been replaced by Andrew Garfield. No big deal. With the mask on, you don't notice the difference and Garfield is more convincing than Maguire as Peter. Okay, Garfield is too old for the part (a 28-year old playing someone in high school), bringing up thoughts of Grease, but Maguire was 26 when he put on the costume. Uncle Ben is now Martin Sheen instead of Cliff Robertson, and that's an improvement. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine a worse casting gaffe than Sally Field as Aunt May. She may be Mrs. Gump but she's not Peter's guardian. Sorry, but it's hard to beat Rosemary Harris (although I suppose she's too old by now). Mary Jane has been ditched as the love interest, replaced by original comic book girlfriend Gwen Stacy. Hair color is the differentiating characteristic. Emma Stone, like Garfield, is too old for a high school kid, but at least 23 is closer to believable. Stone and Garfield are supposedly an off-screen item, which makes it odd that Maguire and Kirsten Dunst displayed better on-screen chemistry.

The first half of The Amazing Spider-Man is almost a point-by-point remake of Spider-Man. Let's go through the checklist. Peter is shown to be a nerd in school. Check. Peter gets bitten by a radioactive spider. Check. Peter feels sick then wakes up with new powers. Check. Peter explores his new powers in selfish ways. Check. Uncle Ben gives Peter a lecture about how "with great power comes great responsibility" (although he doesn't use those exact words this time around). Check. Uncle Ben is murdered as a result of Peter's inaction. Check. And so forth... It's a little like hearing an inelegant cover of a familiar song.

The second half replicates the rhythms of Spider-Man with a different villain. This time, it's The Lizard (Rhys Ifans) instead of The Green Goblin. They're largely interchangeable and the final battle is different primarily because the special effects are better. Really, though, after having watched Spider-Man fight The Goblin, Doctor Octopus, Sandman, and Venom, what more can be done with these generic battles? As well executed as they are by director Marc Webb (making his tent-pole debut after previously helming 500 Days of Summer), there's a repetitive quality that is perhaps unavoidable.

Not the worst, to be sure, but a project so utterly unnecessary.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

gameguardian21Mar 14, 2016

I was pretty disappointed in this reboot. All this is was to make a excuse to retell the story. While some parts I liked, the dialogue was awkward, and it didn't feel like spider man to me.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

ZebunkerDec 20, 2015

Comic books fans unite! Another repeat or re-do of an origin story. I bet you don’t know what will happen. Ah, crap! You already know this story. And who says there is no originality left in Hollywood?

What the web-head brings to this oneComic books fans unite! Another repeat or re-do of an origin story. I bet you don’t know what will happen. Ah, crap! You already know this story. And who says there is no originality left in Hollywood?

What the web-head brings to this one is a rather generic action-fair with tired worn-out heroes, villains and plot devices. The supporting cast is nice but the whole experience leaves you wanting more and a day later you’ve forgotten most of it. The stingy exciting sensation of watching a new Spiderman movie goes away quicker than a dose of Bengay. Comic fans can only hope that with the great power of being able to make any comic book story you want that the next creation has more responsibility to the wonder and amazement of comic stories not just microwaving leftovers for a nice, safe bank return.

Spoilers below.

Best Actor

Andrew Garfield’s first time out as Spiderman is marred with inconsistent acting between scenes and different locations. Buying that he is a highschool aged kid is hard to swallow at times. He does best in the scenes with his not Mary Jane, Jane by the name of Gwen Stacy. While she does have two first names, like any reputable country singer would she’s a good match for Andrew Garfield on screen.

Worst Actor

The ying to Peter’s yang is Emma Stone. Movie goers might be awed by her pretty eyes but wonder why a highschooler has so many wrinkles. That’s because she was 24 when she played this role. She’s even harder to buy being a teenager than the older Andrew Garfield was. Even more so thanks to her tight fitting outfits and sleazy overdone office secretary makeup and hooker boots. She acts in a decent manner, it’s just her character is pointless other than being a love interest for Peter and a symbol of what great power can get you. Free sex. Take that Flash Thompson.

An honorable mention is casting Rhys Ifans as a one-armed scientist. He does a decent job playing the villain but it’s just that decent. He turns much too quickly to the dark side. O, wrong movie. But having the character fight with his possible bad past and the effects of being a big alligator now could’ve been played out more. It’s done much nicer in cartoon versions of this story. Also, why not cast an actor that really only has one arm? It would be a great opportunity for somebody to play a unique role. It’s a missed opportunity. Somebody’s gotta raise a hand for disfigured people. Right?

Best Scene

When the credits show up? The action is so-so. It’s nothing to call home about. Not that Peter Parker would bother calling. The way he treats his aunt, I tell ya! Kids these days! The scope feels rather pulled back from the more epic battles in the Tobey Spiderman films. It’s what you might expect. Spiderman gets beat up a lot and instantly seems to heal. He feels bad for Ben for like 5 minutes then bad guy shows up. The best parts were actually with the love story of Peter and Emma. They had really good chemistry together on screen and it was more fun to watch than most of the movie sadly. That’s not something you want to say about an action movie.

And Dennis Leary getting killed is a highlight. Who did not stand up and cheer in the theater for that moment! Would’ve been nice if he got ran over by a Ford truck though.

Worst Scene

The end sequence where Spiderman must race as fast as he can to save Gotham before Joker can release the toxic gas into the city. O, wrong movie again!

Spiderman has to go down to the big OsCorp building that is a discount Empire State building to stop the alligator man from turning everybody into ….alligators? Guess so. But, Spidey can’t get there fast because he just got shot by a trigger happy cop. That’s right after the police captain tells everybody not to shoot. A shaking your head moment for sure.

Well Spiderman has to go down this super long road but can’t web sling off the super tall buildings for convenient plot reasons. So, in an audience grumbling move a construction foreman that Spiderman interacted with earlier, when Spiderman said his kid from a car, calls all his other buddies to move cranes so Spiderman can web sling to the danger makes you want to hit your face with a dirty needle.

What are the chances that there are dozens of cranes all down the road, at the same time? With people around to drive them. Plus, people that all can be reached by walkie-talkie at night after work is over and who must be all somehow work for the same company so they can communicate. It’s like a tutorial mission out of a video game. It’s that bad.

Hits
- Not too many 360 spinning shots.
- Dennis Leary gets killed! Not by a Ford truck though 
- The suit does not suck.

Misses
- Too long. Bad CGI.
- Stop with Stan Lee cameos.
- Kinda “b-word” boring.

Grade C… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

YellowKirbyNov 26, 2015

I liked this movie when I first saw it, but It's quite forgettable, really. Andrew Garfield really isn't as good a Spider-Man as Tobey Maguire, and Rhys Ifans' Lizard isn't as interesting as Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin. All in all, it's anI liked this movie when I first saw it, but It's quite forgettable, really. Andrew Garfield really isn't as good a Spider-Man as Tobey Maguire, and Rhys Ifans' Lizard isn't as interesting as Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin. All in all, it's an alright movie, but it's no match for the original trilogy.… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

5

Jefferygamer200Oct 13, 2015

This movie was decent not as good as Spider-Man 2 but decent. The jokes were sorta good. Really could've used more fighting. And the music is disappointing. Quite a weird ending as well.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

NatT96Aug 19, 2015

It was not bat at all! I enjoyed this to an extent. The action scenes and drama actually worked compared to the second. I was immediately not a fan of the character, but hell he at least did some really cool stunts that was damn nice. As forIt was not bat at all! I enjoyed this to an extent. The action scenes and drama actually worked compared to the second. I was immediately not a fan of the character, but hell he at least did some really cool stunts that was damn nice. As for the plot however It was forgettable r, literally I had to re-watch it because I could only remember the ending.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

TheDude-Jul 18, 2015

The Amazing Spiderman is a mediocre film while it does have sweet visuals and a likable protagonist the main problems are that the film is tonally bipolar, the villain is weak the origin story is the exact same thing we have already seen.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

BoogeeFilmGuyJul 15, 2015

This film was not bad. However, it wasn't good either. I thought it was kind of boring in places, and the action scenes weren't the best. Although I did think Andrew Garfield did a decent job as Spider-Man and again, I didn't hate it. I'dThis film was not bad. However, it wasn't good either. I thought it was kind of boring in places, and the action scenes weren't the best. Although I did think Andrew Garfield did a decent job as Spider-Man and again, I didn't hate it. I'd give it a 6 out of 10, 5 out of 10 if you're not a die-hard Spidey fan.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

ThatCooperGuyJun 25, 2015

The editing is horrible and it has a very dull tone. Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker is unlikable, but his Spider-Man is pretty decent. However the more I re-watch it, the lower it gets. I'd rather watch Spider-Man 3...

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

6

MovieManiac83Apr 22, 2015

Where to go with Spider-Man? That's the billion dollar question that has plagued Sony Pictures. One of their flagship franchises, Spider-Man is a proven money-maker that could not be allowed to lie fallow simply because the creative engineWhere to go with Spider-Man? That's the billion dollar question that has plagued Sony Pictures. One of their flagship franchises, Spider-Man is a proven money-maker that could not be allowed to lie fallow simply because the creative engine ran out of fuel. One could argue that, over the span of three pictures - 2002's Spider-Man, 2004's Spider-Man 2, and 2007's Spider-Man 3 - Sam Raimi took the character as far as he could go. In fact, the third film in that series might have been one too many. When it came time to develop a fourth installment, Raimi departed over "creative differences" and Sony was left with a movie that needed to go forward but no driver behind the wheel. So they followed what has become an accepted approach in Hollywood: when in doubt, remake and reboot. So, a mere ten years after Raimi brought one of Marvel's most respected titles to the screen, that vision has been scrapped for a modification. The Amazing Spider-Man isn't sufficiently different from the 2002 movie to make it interesting and it ignores two major seismic shifts that have rocked the superhero genre since then: Nolan's Batman trilogy and The Avengers. Both of those have made it almost impossible for something with the limited ambition and lazy writing of The Amazing Spider-Man to satisfy. Oh, there's little doubt it will be deemed a success on a business level, and die-hard fans of the comic book will probably respond favorably, but there's something inherently depressing about what this movie says about the state of summer blockbusters in general and superhero movies in particular. Namely, how can audiences respond to something that offers no more than a re-telling of a story we have seen done at least as well so recently?

The Amazing Spider-Man provides a regurgitation of the title character's origin story, as if we couldn't remember it from ten years ago. There was a simple elegance and charming naiveté to the way Raimi presented the story. Yes, the suspension of disbelief curve was high but that's a given with a superhero movie. Here, the matter is complicated by sloppy screenwriting. In addition to swallowing the fact that a spider bite from a "super spider" can imbue Peter Parker with powers, you have to accept that the guy is a master thief. After all, he breaks into the inner sanctum of a top secret genetic research think tank with only a fake I.D. badge. It's random, repeated acts of stupidity like this that damage the movie's ability to establish its own fragile pseudo-reality. The viewer accepts a lot of impossibilities in a superhero movie, but there are limits.

The first half of The Amazing Spider-Man is almost a point-by-point remake of Spider-Man. Let's go through the checklist. Peter is shown to be a nerd in school. Check. Peter gets bitten by a radioactive spider. Check. Peter feels sick then wakes up with new powers. Check. Peter explores his new powers in selfish ways. Check. Uncle Ben gives Peter a lecture about how "with great power comes great responsibility" (although he doesn't use those exact words this time around). Check. Uncle Ben is murdered as a result of Peter's inaction. Check. And so forth... It's a little like hearing an inelegant cover of a familiar song.

The second half replicates the rhythms of Spider-Man with a different villain. This time, it's The Lizard (Rhys Ifans) instead of The Green Goblin. They're largely interchangeable and the final battle is different primarily because the special effects are better. Really, though, after having watched Spider-Man fight The Goblin, Doctor Octopus, Sandman, and Venom, what more can be done with these generic battles? As well executed as they are by director Marc Webb (making his tent-pole debut after previously helming 500 Days of Summer), there's a repetitive quality that is perhaps unavoidable. The Avengers changed the game when it comes to superhero smackdowns and, because The Amazing Spider-Man is unable to ascend to that level, the fight scenes seem a little quaint and one-dimensional. I wrote in my review of The Avengers that it "raised the bar to a level where the more 'traditional' approach of having a single superhero tangle with a supervillain or two may no longer be enough... When something has been dialed up to an '11,' isn't there an inherent letdown to turning it back to a '7'?" A '7' may be generous where The Amazing Spider-Man is concerned.

For me, this is as deflating a movie as I have seen all year. Not the worst, to be sure, but a project so utterly unnecessary that it made me want to gnash my teeth in frustration. Rebooting Spider-Man, while a questionable endeavor in its own right, offered an opportunity to do something unique with the character. Take it to a place where it hasn't been.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

homer4presidentMar 13, 2015

A third of the movie is a mediocre remake of the 1st Spider-Man movie. Another third of the movie was a bad teenage soap opera. The few action scenes were cliche and predictable. The Lizardman looked cheesy as hell. I didn't see much humorA third of the movie is a mediocre remake of the 1st Spider-Man movie. Another third of the movie was a bad teenage soap opera. The few action scenes were cliche and predictable. The Lizardman looked cheesy as hell. I didn't see much humor and fun in the film like I did in Sam Rammi's Spider-Man movies. It was boring.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

aaronbartuskaJan 12, 2015

This unnecessary Spiderman reboot is saved from being a CGI-filled mess by the performances of Stone and Garfield. Their romantic chemistry is one of the only reasons to see this film.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

supermann234Dec 7, 2014

This is an average movie.The music used was quite good and the special effects were quite good. This movie has an average storyline. Nonetheless, it has a good ending.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

WamblyHadesNov 12, 2014

Soy un gran gran de las películas de Raimi, y esta me pareció muy buena película. Buena historia (más apegada al cómic), buena acción y buena actuación por parte de Andrew Garfield y Emma Stone. Aún así, en mi opinión, no logró superar alSoy un gran gran de las películas de Raimi, y esta me pareció muy buena película. Buena historia (más apegada al cómic), buena acción y buena actuación por parte de Andrew Garfield y Emma Stone. Aún así, en mi opinión, no logró superar al Spider-Man de Sam Raimi, y varios factores como un Peter más rebelde y un traje con un diseño bastante distinto al original, además de la carencia de una buena música (como la de Danny Elfman de la trilogía de Raimi), hizo de esta no se sintiese como una película de Spider-Man. Aún así, disfruté mucho viéndola. Saludos.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

TheApplegnomeAug 17, 2014

This reboot is less impressive than the original.

There are many silly and weird things that just don't make sense in this movie, and the actor Andrew Garfield as Spiderman is the most disappointed thing, he's so irresponsible. There areThis reboot is less impressive than the original.

There are many silly and weird things that just don't make sense in this movie, and the actor Andrew Garfield as Spiderman is the most disappointed thing, he's so irresponsible. There are some boring and silly scenes that just kept me bored while watching this new Spiderman movie, and there isn't that much positive aspects, (maybe the CGI).

The the less enjoyable action, and a less impressive soundtrack truly made this movie worse than the original movies.

The Amazing Spiderman get a 6.5… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

Meth-dudeAug 16, 2014

The movie was ok for the visually stunning part but for the acting and the action scenes the movie just failed.There was not enough action and when there was some of it,it was filmed like ****

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

joao1198pedroMay 5, 2014

This film is the second worst spider man film, ok this is more kind to it source material but it is still a bad movie with a terrible vilain, but emma stone save a hole part from this film.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

LokathorApr 6, 2014

I dunno what all the hate for this movie is about. It's not the best, it's not the worst. It's a fun Spiderman movie if you like Spiderman, but if you're not really a comic book person then you can safely skip this movie without having missed much.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

marcmyworksJan 13, 2014

An interesting beginning in the reboot franchise, but too tweeny for my liking. Andrew Garfield is the essence of Peter Parker but his acting gets lost in a cloud of CG.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

Iky009Jan 6, 2014

Mudou um pouco a história e realmente ficou interessante.Mudou um pouco a história e realmente ficou interessante. … Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

4

SkyScreamer57Nov 29, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Amazing Spider-Man, unfortunately, wasn't the solid reboot that I was hoping for. Now don't get me wrong. It's not necessarily a bad movie. I still found it decent but it just felt like things were really missing in this movie. The CGI and visuals look great in the movie, the acting is pretty solid, and it started to go somewhere towards the end. However, the problems I have with the film is 1.) the pacing, 2.) the writing felt a little lazy, 3.) the first act felt just the same as the first act in the 2002 Spider-man film, 4.) the action scenes weren't that great and were far and few in between, and 5.) the romance between Peter and Gwen felt awkward and shallow.

So overall, not a very good reboot. However, I still do have high hopes for The Amazing Spider-man 2 coming next summer. If that movie can fix the problems I mention (has better pacing, writing and action) and has Spider-man being more and cracking more jokes(which is what I did like about the Spider-man in this movie expect he hardly cracked any jokes and they weren't very funny) then I guarantee it'll be a great movie. But as for the Amazing Spider-man. It's at best, ok/decent. Not bad, not good, just ok.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

garasaki619Nov 15, 2013

Don't like this one compared to the original. Peter Parker in this version is a lot more arrogant and rude. I know it's just a movie but Peter's arrogance indirectly got his uncle killed.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

ns0lAug 21, 2013

Well, the new Peter is charming and a very simple guy, and really really amazing. Not only girls must love him, but everyone. The other actors are great too, the movie is interesting and very good but only the first half. After that the movieWell, the new Peter is charming and a very simple guy, and really really amazing. Not only girls must love him, but everyone. The other actors are great too, the movie is interesting and very good but only the first half. After that the movie went bad. It reminds me of the power rangers kids series. I think there's a lot to fix in the movie story, but it's too late now.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

5

mijxeroAug 11, 2013

Meh, this movie seemed to take the things I liked from the original and throw them away and take the parts I didn't like and magnify them. Its an average super hero movie with a drawn out beginning. Its not bad, but I wasn't reallyMeh, this movie seemed to take the things I liked from the original and throw them away and take the parts I didn't like and magnify them. Its an average super hero movie with a drawn out beginning. Its not bad, but I wasn't really impressed either.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

SeriosityJul 26, 2013

Watching it again I realized this filmed was completely flawed albeit mostly entertaining. Aside from Uncle Ben, everything in this rings completely false.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

JmsbppJul 15, 2013

No me empeño en dañar las peliculas que a muchos les Gusta sino en valorar en este caso lo excelente que venia siendo Spider Man, no esta Peter Parker, es una nueva Historia un nuevo inicio a la clasica historia del hombre araña que noNo me empeño en dañar las peliculas que a muchos les Gusta sino en valorar en este caso lo excelente que venia siendo Spider Man, no esta Peter Parker, es una nueva Historia un nuevo inicio a la clasica historia del hombre araña que no arranca muy bien.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

drlowdonJun 7, 2013

With the Sam Raimi directed trilogy still fresh in our minds it is impossible not to make comparisons when watching this latest reboot of the franchise, particularly since the movies opening forty-five minutes again takes us throughWith the Sam Raimi directed trilogy still fresh in our minds it is impossible not to make comparisons when watching this latest reboot of the franchise, particularly since the movies opening forty-five minutes again takes us through Spiderman’s origin story. Most viewers will be already be familiar with this story and so it is questionable whether so much time needed to be spent on it but it still makes for watchable cinema.

From then on the movie goes in its own direction and in some ways The Amazing Spiderman is an improvement over its predecessor. Being released ten years after the first of the previous trilogy the special effects and CGI are obviously a big improvement with Spiderman himself moving far more convincingly and The Lizard looking very realistic. Emma Stone, as Gwen Stacy, is also far more likable than Kirsten Dunst’s Mary Jane Watson while Andrew Garfield is close to matching Toby Maguire in the lead role. The plot involving Peter Parkers parents also provides a little more depth to the overall plot of the movie and its future sequels.

On the down side this reboot, while having its moments, was not quite as funny as Raimi’s origin story and seeing the Webbed Crusader on screen does not have quite the same impact it once had. This is certainly a decent start to this new franchise however and I am hopeful it will deliver more in the future.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

Skullgirlsfan13May 28, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If I were to sum up how I feel about this movie, I would say: mahogana. That is a bizarre expression, but that what this film is to me: Bizarre. There was of course A lot of talk about why a reboot to a series no even that old enough to deserve a reboot. The reason why was because Fox was about to lose the license to the series, and so they needed to kick Raimi out of the project, he was working on the 4th one but it would take too long for him to finish. So in the end we get a new spider man, new director, and brand new cast. With all of that stuff being hurled at us, can I as a viewer withstand it? Almost. I almost can withstand all the new stuff, but I can't stand some of the decisions they made though. The actor they got was pretty good to play Peter, but as Spider man he's either too dark or too even for spider man. The villain is almost a contender for most disappointing villain in an actually decent superhero movie, he's so boring, and is just a ridiculous villain. I think his abilities are unclear, as in he can regenerate at an incredible rate is rather unexplained. Lizards don't grow their limbs back immediately, it takes quite a while. His plot makes no sense, make the whole city lizards, why? What good would come out of doing that? One of the most important scenes in the spider man universe is done horribly in this picture, the death of peter's uncle. The saying is: with great power comes great responsibility, but that doesn't matter because his uncle is an idiot for trying to wrestle away a gun from a younger thug. The whole T.V mentality of this is really infuriating because now we have to wait until the next one because filmmakers discovered that they don't have to tell a story in one film, but rather have it spread to multiple films. I guess I can say I don't hate this film, but I should highlight that I don't like it.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

JonLabudakisMay 13, 2013

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 iOf 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

TheDeakinApr 11, 2013

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 theI 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

JohnLemonJan 20, 2013

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 everyThis 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

worleyjamersJan 15, 2013

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 storyI 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

EDJET787Jan 5, 2013

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 wasOut 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

pyxisDec 28, 2012

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 theNo, 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

anshimanDec 11, 2012

'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'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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

BestponyDec 9, 2012

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 craneIt'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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

WriteFilmLive21Nov 30, 2012

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 isUnder 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

dragonbillzNov 28, 2012

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 fellI 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

TokyochuchuNov 26, 2012

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 actionThe 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

00LiteyearNov 18, 2012

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 forcedSpiderman 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

DTDunnNov 14, 2012

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

bosnianNov 12, 2012

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

tallmanwritingNov 12, 2012

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 withAndrew 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.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

6

cameronmorewoodNov 5, 2012

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

lahaine2012Nov 4, 2012

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 wasThe 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

nilerafter24Oct 27, 2012

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 thoughtAbsolutely 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

Friskytiger81Oct 25, 2012

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 madeIn 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

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

HalfwelshmanSep 24, 2012

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 asThe 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

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

5

HfahmyAug 14, 2012

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 aNothing 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

btzneb92Aug 12, 2012

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'sI'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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

JTKelleyAug 10, 2012

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.

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

6

lasttimeisawAug 8, 2012

Watched a 2D version in the cinema, and now the aftertaste is quite irony since the redux deliberately put an

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

jwt7000Aug 2, 2012

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

billrullerJul 29, 2012

I wasn't really interested to see this movie, even though the trailer looked pretty cool. My friends tell me that this wasn't so good, so I never bothered. Until my dad wanted to see it with me, so I broke down and watched. Its actuallyI wasn't really interested to see this movie, even though the trailer looked pretty cool. My friends tell me that this wasn't so good, so I never bothered. Until my dad wanted to see it with me, so I broke down and watched. Its actually better than I thought, but its not as great as I hoped it will be. After the disappointment of Spiderman 3, I was hoping the re-boot's will make a dark and serious Spiderman movie, but this one was lil too silly. I will give credit, the fight scenes, special effects, and the beginning of the story took it slow and explained more than the original. I also like that they used Gwen Stacy instead of Mary-Jane Watson, this follows more to the comics. However, the problem starts when Peter Parker becomes Spiderman. I don't understand why he has to use a device to shoot webs, I wish they use the same idea from the original when the webs come out of his wrist. Another thing...is it me, or is Spiderman more goofier in this one? He chuckles and acts like a child the whole time while wearing the suit, kinda like how Dark Suit Spiderman did in Spiderman 3. As for the new actor of Peter Parker / Spiderman, he was okay. He's likable and funny, but for some reason I just think Tobey Macguire was mostly memorable and more mature. I kinda think new Spiderman is too exposing, he reveals his true identity 4 times....not that much of a private superhero. The Lizard, he was pretty good. I like the character and the CG of the mutated monster looked pretty good. So my thoughts in this movie are kinda mixed, I like the movie but I don't find it as great as I wish it can be. I'm still glad I finally got to see it, and maybe change my mind if I see it again and like it.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

MattyiceJul 28, 2012

This movie was a lot worse than the first 3. Andrew Garfield was not a good enough nerd to be peter parker, the whole story behind lizard was very confusing, and overall, this movie was a very mediocre superhero movie reboot.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

TheDRauchJul 27, 2012

In the year of tentpole epic superhero films, The Amazing Spider-Man doesn't really stand out. After only five years after the last installment, the disapointing Spider-Man 3, the series has been rebooted for audiences once again. For thoseIn the year of tentpole epic superhero films, The Amazing Spider-Man doesn't really stand out. After only five years after the last installment, the disapointing Spider-Man 3, the series has been rebooted for audiences once again. For those new to the series, this would be a nice way of introducing them to the web slinging superhero. But for those of us old enough to remember the original, it may come off as predictable. The more light-hearted tone of the original is lost here (there are moments of humor, but it is overall, more serious and dark) and, while the effects have improved and are worth checking out here, the storytelling is pretty standard. There are engaging performances from Garfield (I particularly liked his bringing out of the well-known hero), Stone, and Ifans, but it doesn't really bring anything else new to the series. In a year of big tentpole super-hero films like The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises, The Amazing Spider-Man doesn't really live up to it's title. That little pun probably has probably been used by anyone who didn't really like the film either in their reviews.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

SonicphotoJul 27, 2012

The idea of a reboot seemed dumb to me, it was too soon, but I decided to ignore that and hope for the best and see this. The problem is that, it doesn't change that much the original story, I was expecting a very different perspective ofThe idea of a reboot seemed dumb to me, it was too soon, but I decided to ignore that and hope for the best and see this. The problem is that, it doesn't change that much the original story, I was expecting a very different perspective of Peter's story, instead we get basically the same things repeated all over again but with a quicker pace, and like a fan made version of its origins. After it finishes introducing Spider-Man the movie starts to get better, but it doesn't leave a mark on you. Also, the Lizard's face felt it needed much more. Oh and what also annoyed me the most, was the tacked on jokes, the jokes felt very scripted, they didn't come out naturally. Is not bad to remake a movie, but please do a change to it, if you are doing it so soon! Batman Begins was a reboot and a very different one at that.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

4

BlueMoonJul 26, 2012

FIrst ask yourself if you were satisfied with Sam Raimi's Spiderman Trilogy. If the answer is yes, more than likely you will find this remake completely unnecssesary. If it's no, you might be in luck but keep in mind this Spiderman makesFIrst ask yourself if you were satisfied with Sam Raimi's Spiderman Trilogy. If the answer is yes, more than likely you will find this remake completely unnecssesary. If it's no, you might be in luck but keep in mind this Spiderman makes little to no attempt to introduce anything new or original in terms of plot. This movie is also loaded with plotholes and multiple events that stretch whatever sense of realism this spiderman brought to the table. Good news is Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield are great! Bad news is pretty much everything else, in that this spiderman offers absolutely nothing new or interesting to the superhero.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

FDT44Jul 26, 2012

Its been a mere decade since Sam Raimi helmed Tobey Maguire (as twenty-something Peter Parker) and company together to set the modern standard for the webslinging hero. As the first two films experienced both commerical and critical success,Its been a mere decade since Sam Raimi helmed Tobey Maguire (as twenty-something Peter Parker) and company together to set the modern standard for the webslinging hero. As the first two films experienced both commerical and critical success, it's understandable as to why the latest project, The Amazing Spider-Man may strike some fans as being "too soon." But, such popular wisdom didn't halt the 500 Days of Summer director Marc Webb from attempting to prove the nay seyers wrong. Challenged with the prospect of following 2002's Spiderman, this Spidey-film, in production, suffered from the sole disadvantage of being a subsequent act: avoiding semblance. Being a remake, however, involves at least some similarity. In any regard, the film succeeds in distinguishing itself largely due to the new Peter Parker, Andrew Garfield. Known for his spotlighted performance in The Social Network, Garfield assumes a modernized persona in 'Spider-Man.' He, though playing a bit older of a teenager than did Maguire in his debut, is instantly accepted in his role, having a fresh-faced innocence framed with anxious tics, angst, wry humor, and an unpretentiously down-played charisma that realistically reflects towards today's youth. Moreover, unlike the hackneyed "nerdy" image Maguire attained, Garfield is a punkish, skateboarding, internet-surfing, texting teen who just feels right; factor in the tall, lengthy stature that fills the red and blue arachnid suit which draws a far closer semblance to the comics than does Maguire's diminutive clumsiness. Peter Parker, then, is an abounding improvement; we even get to see him as a child in the Prologue. His love interest, the newly monikered Gwen Stacy--no more scarlet-headed Mary Jane--played by the ultra-talented Emma Stone is a beachy, yet intelligent blonde, all emo-short skirts, high boots and blimpingly gazing eyes underscored with thick-painted eyeliner; she is terrific and delightfully lighter and more expressive in character than the cold, equivocally taciturn Mary Jane of previous films. The two together, though, don't always stick like one would want them to, as the pathos and jokes don't land consistently, but individually they work wonders. When a mid-plot twist reveals Gwen's father (Denis Leary) is head honcho of the police force, (Leary miserably nods along) the divided love affair between the two crossed teenagers assumes more of the same division as between Peter and Mary Jane, and ups the ante in cohesive sentiment. As for Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Uncle Ben and Aunt May, they are near perfect castings but neither is used nearly enough. And, the one-armed scientist-reptile-symbiote, Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) the screenplay's poor excuse of a villain, is a character no more an antagonist than Peter Parker for a chunk of the film. He is brought to his monstrous transgressions by one Dr. Ratha, who demands that Connors create an antidote for an ailing company superior. While The Amazing Spider-Man does devote some attention to character revamping, namely Peter Parker and the fledgling Gwen Stacy, as well as capturing some subtle nuances from the comics, it also fails to web its components together, often revisiting the same plot points of its predecessor. Though forgiving the latter is sensible, the former is impeachable. What we're talking about: plot contrivances, continuity errors, gaping lapses in logic, and embarrassing coincidences. For one, not nearly enough is said about Peter's parents, particularly his father. Early on, Peter is searching the web (why is a teenage prodigy using Bing?) and it is there he whimsically finds an article of his father with Connors. Others include: what happened to Uncle Ben's murderer? What happened to Dr. Ratha after he was seen in his vehicle on the Williamsburg bridge? Why are no photos taken of the 8-foot tall reptile rampaging through cars like magots? Why are a swarm of lizards walking on a web of Spiderman's in the sewer? Who writes "Property of" on anything? Why do crane operators work during evacuations? If Dr. Connors' reptile-transforming serum was ephemeral, and thereby needed to be injected every four hours or so, why would he expose the entire New York population to it?; the effects would be short-lived. And, the last I will mention, why is Denis Leary the only police officer on the roof of the building in the finale, when hundreds of other SWAT personnel are meandering on the street, watching the hero and villain fight? It's these contrivances and more that mar all that 'Spider-man' offers; director Marc Webb can only feint the mishaps with unfulfilled emotive closeups that merely break up the pervasive silliness for a short time, but such aren't ever forgotten. By the looks of it, the making of 'Spider-man' was lost right from the boardroom; oh, there it is, WHOP! It's an icky mess to clean up.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

6

ryanofearthJul 25, 2012

A LITTLE HARD TO BE IMPRESSED BY A LACK OF RE-IMAGINATION. I saw this with low expectations, but, like many, wanted to see what
they had done differently from Sam Raimi's trilogy. I honestly believe
it would have been great to see the storyA LITTLE HARD TO BE IMPRESSED BY A LACK OF RE-IMAGINATION. I saw this with low expectations, but, like many, wanted to see what
they had done differently from Sam Raimi's trilogy. I honestly believe
it would have been great to see the story continued, rather than
restarted and barely re-imagined. The pacing was painfully slow, and
took way too much time to gain momentum with a story that was too
bubble-gum pop to be taken seriously, and with about as much substance
as watching an episode of Pretty Little Liars. The chemistry between
Andrew Garfield and Emma stone was a high point, though at times Peter
seemed a little too twitchy, and a little annoying when in costume. The
second half of the film was much more enjoyable after being bored by
the first, with some nice special effects. Unfortunately the film
score, which should have complimented the screen action, lacked. I did
however enjoy one of the last scenes with the blue snow and felt that
the music in that scene was perfect for a great looking shot. All in
all I wouldn't spend over $10 to watch this, and with the lack of
action wouldn't bother with 3D but will probably watch it again when it
comes out on DVD.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

5

robbocroftJul 25, 2012

The word that summarize this movie is "pointless".
It's a souless script that adds absolutely nothing to the "first" version of Raimi.
Script is poor and plot is weak at best. It seems like the director just wanted to lay out some groundThe word that summarize this movie is "pointless".
It's a souless script that adds absolutely nothing to the "first" version of Raimi.
Script is poor and plot is weak at best. It seems like the director just wanted to lay out some ground for future films. It's like following a checklist to introduce spider-man to a new audience. Waste of time, not entertaining at all. And if you hope for some good action you're out of luck too. Fighting scenes are few and far in between… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

5

seancriswellJul 24, 2012

If your a Spidey fan there were some things to like in this reboot. Unfortunately being released so soon after Raimi's version they will always be compared. I was looking forward to seeing a little more of Parker's back story with hisIf your a Spidey fan there were some things to like in this reboot. Unfortunately being released so soon after Raimi's version they will always be compared. I was looking forward to seeing a little more of Parker's back story with his parents, but that plot line fell way short in my book and did little that the original did not. I also found the Uncle Ben story line far less satisfying in this version. I did enjoy the Stacy character quite a bit, although again I liked the chemistry between Parker and Watson from the original quite a bit better. The Lizard as the villain was one area that I would consider an improvement on the first. Also the visuals where Spidey are concerned I found to be compelling when put up against the first. Overall not enough to warrant a reboot in my estimation.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

BrokendownJul 23, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I found this movie not to me my cup of tea. A few cheese parts in the movie along with a few missing features really dropped this movie down a bit in my eyes. Making a quick comparson to the other 3 spider-man movies. I think this movie rates lower then the first 2 movies and higher then the 3rd. Third movie had way to many story lines going on for me. Harry (As the Green Goblin), Sandman and on top of all of that the Venom story line with Eric from that 70's show. So back to this review.
What were the cheese things that just didn't sit right with me. I found this skateboarding hipster peter parker with spiked (Not how I would invision him). A few scenes left me thinking why put that in there? From throwing a football at a goal post and bending it. Then breaking and crushing or sticking to everything he touchs (The scenes felt a bit over board / childish). Spider-man playing with a robber sticks him to a wall then fires webs at him for fun. The scene where Peter is at Gwen's House and jumps over the side of a 100feet condo,Her Parents thought "I didn't see Peter leave out the front door" (Hard to explain). Thats just a few examples. A few features that would have connected me to the story or peaked my interest a bit more. Has to do with the Villian "The Lizard" I like the Lizard as a Villian he out matches Spider-man's strenght and speed. The one thing I didn't like was the look of the Lizard "No Snout" I was a fan of the comic's and tv series and the Lizards look just didn't cut it for me. ( I thought he looked like I-Robot with scales super fail with conneting me with the Villian) Sense I was a Fan of the comic's I loved the fact that the Lizard communiated with other repititles, I would have liked to have seen a few aligators to spice up a few action scenes. This isn't a make or break it for me in this new series of spider-man movies, but I think there is definitly room for improvement. I still will be checking out the next spider-man movie its just I'm not so pumped up from this one that I'll be seeing that next one on opening night.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

6

iamtomalmondJul 21, 2012

The film was good, don't get me wrong. The characters were much better, and much more likable than Raimi's version, but I feel it was too soon.

The world is the same, the story and structure is very very similar, it terms of effectsThe film was good, don't get me wrong. The characters were much better, and much more likable than Raimi's version, but I feel it was too soon.

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

SensibleGamerJul 21, 2012

At the end of the day , regardless of how hard director Marc Webb tries to veil it , you simply cannot escape the fact that the Amazing Spider - Man is nothing more than old wine in a new bottle . Director Webb's decision to re - visitAt the end of the day , regardless of how hard director Marc Webb tries to veil it , you simply cannot escape the fact that the Amazing Spider - Man is nothing more than old wine in a new bottle . Director Webb's decision to re - visit Spidey's origin , has in my opinion backfired . It lacks the maturity and slick sense of style so very characteristic of Christopher Nolan's Batman films , being overly - reliant on traditional comic book movie cliche and somewhat unimaginative set - pieces . The performances of the entire cast - Garfield and Stone in particular - are worth a mention as they keep you invested in some otherwise dull moments . At the end of the day , I can't help but feel that The Amazing Spider - Man could have been so much better had the creators not decided to take an overly - conservative approach and instead would've dared to think outside - the - box the way Nolan did with his Batman films . Nonetheless , it's still decent fun if you've got a few hours to spare , just don't set your expectations sky high… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

5

dev92Jul 21, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It was a safe, solid action film which did not push any boundaries. I would have given this higher but it was just too similar to the original film and was done too soon in my opinion. Could still be a solid series of films as long as they try new story lines but I understand why this one was quite similar to the first Spiderman as it is about his origins.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

BonzothebuzzJul 20, 2012

So the reboot machine keeps on churning out films from our childhood but here we have a reboot, or should i say remake, of a movie series that only ended 5 years ago. Granted Spider-Man 3 felt like it was stuff to the brim with too manySo the reboot machine keeps on churning out films from our childhood but here we have a reboot, or should i say remake, of a movie series that only ended 5 years ago. Granted Spider-Man 3 felt like it was stuff to the brim with too many characters and too much going on to be coherent so going back to basics is a good idea but not necessarily back to the origin story as even though this does have some interesting ideas, you can… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

jsowersJul 19, 2012

I was disappointed with this film because it does not do anything meaningful that the previous Spider-Man trilogy already accomplished. There was no need for another movie that does nothing to distinguish itself.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

4

buckeyeboi33Jul 18, 2012

Repetitive.Boring. Zzz. I saw this movie in 3d hoping the action might pop out at me... Well if I seen it in 4d I would have still fell asleep.Don't get me wrong people, but this is a supposed to be a "superhero" movie. Not a drama, loveRepetitive.Boring. Zzz. I saw this movie in 3d hoping the action might pop out at me... Well if I seen it in 4d I would have still fell asleep.Don't get me wrong people, but this is a supposed to be a "superhero" movie. Not a drama, love story, or an old folk tale. In video game terms...This movie has no replay value. Trying to tell the same story with less action is something I just don't get. I like Andrew Garfield as an actor. I even like what he did with the role. But the director forgot to say Take 1... Action!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

DuffladJul 18, 2012

Alright, so if compared to the other Spiderman movies, this one is definitely better, it is a step in the right direction with its accuracy to Spiderman, it really did feel like Peter Parker and Spiderman, so I appreciate that a lot, but theAlright, so if compared to the other Spiderman movies, this one is definitely better, it is a step in the right direction with its accuracy to Spiderman, it really did feel like Peter Parker and Spiderman, so I appreciate that a lot, but the film is written quite poorly with a pretty lame ending. There are many scenes I felt added nothing to the plot or characters, and KILLED the rising action, as well as the music was completely off putting in most scenes. I really liked the actors picked for this film, and hope that the next one is written better.… Expand

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

4

ArgoLolJul 18, 2012

What...
This movie has to be one of THE cheesiest superhero movies I've ever seen. The beginning was nice and sophisticated, but the villian...THAT terrible villian Lizard had no characted whatsoever, and neither did Peter. He was just aWhat...
This movie has to be one of THE cheesiest superhero movies I've ever seen. The beginning was nice and sophisticated, but the villian...THAT terrible villian Lizard had no characted whatsoever, and neither did Peter. He was just a worried and aggrivated teen who had anger issues after his uncle died. He was so 1-Dimensional that I even groaned loudly in theaters. The plot is what really made me unconcious. The main threat is to infect the- wait this is spoiler free. Um, well, the main threat of the enemie is extremely predictable, and is a common plot that even superhero TV shows use frequently. The emotional parts in the end were also kind of a laughing stock. The action is not as bad, but it's not the most believable due to the strange CGI used on Lizard. This is only worthy to watch as a popcorn flick or as a low quality time waster, other than that, the Spider Man from 2001 is a lot batter choice.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

EssenceOfSugarJul 14, 2012

Despite my expectations, this film was reasonably good entertainment. I was expecting to come out of the cinema thinking that 2 hours of my life had been improperly taken away and what I dislike about 2 hour films is that they tend to dragDespite my expectations, this film was reasonably good entertainment. I was expecting to come out of the cinema thinking that 2 hours of my life had been improperly taken away and what I dislike about 2 hour films is that they tend to drag and fill in gaps in the middle with pointless stuff. It wasn't really what I would call a fresh start; if it would bother people like writers and directors to take this material and put something new into it, it would be helpful to make us aware of what the film was supposed to be about. We get it, Peter gets bitten by a spider and gains superpowers, but what it was mainly setting up was for us to find out about a guy trying to achieve perfection who ends up turning into a giant lizard and terrorising the city. As well as revisiting familiar plot points, it gave us something fairly useless to go on - we could have known more about Peter's parents. Besides that, the characters themselves provided better entertainment, which is for the fact that good humour is something I like in films, but, ironically, Peter Parker had little depth despite being the main character. I would have given a higher score, but it pains me to say that you cannot make a good film if you cover familiar ground, add new ideas and claim it as your own.… Expand

0 of 4 users found this helpful04

All this user's reviews

5

GreatMartinJul 13, 2012

All I could think of while watching

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

6

GilbertoJul 12, 2012

The Amazing Spider Man is good, but not quite amazing. This is do on par with the fact that it has a lot to live up to after the almost perfect trilogy brought by director Sam Raimi. Expectations at least from my part were all too short givenThe Amazing Spider Man is good, but not quite amazing. This is do on par with the fact that it has a lot to live up to after the almost perfect trilogy brought by director Sam Raimi. Expectations at least from my part were all too short given that I really enjoyed those last films, and while this reboot didnt really satiate me completely, I did for a fact enjoyed watching it. The first problem with the film is that it is doomed to repeat what we already know. For the first half an hour, Spideys obligatory build up before becoming the hero we know is revisited, and that includes Peter being bitten by a spider and Peter watching his uncle Ben being murdered. The director seemed aware of the issue as the scenes are given some new twists, and also seemed to resume everything as quick as possible, but this overall make them feel uneventful. Once that is overcome, the movie starts opening some interesting elements, as well as some interesting characters. Emma Stone as Gwen is great to give an example. Actions scenes are quite nice ,but I dunno if as memorable as other heart pumping scenes from the first three, like per say: the train sequence in Spiderman 2. The soundtrack is OK but at the end pretty forgettable and really falls short to the outstanding soundtrack from the hexed trilogy before it. At the end, perhaps "The Amazing Spider Man´s" most unselfish but unfortunate fate is that it going to be compared to Sam Raimi´s work, and it is from that perspective that it falls short in some and other aspects. It is a good movie to watch with great characters, fighting scenes, music and actor performances, but all of that was also done (and in some ways even better) with the first line of movies and this calls into question if it was really necessary to start all over again.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

5

HipsteranJul 12, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Although making a reboot of a movie that was released 10 years before is absurd, I'm not going to complain about it because you knew that long before going to the movie and I believe it's not fair. However, because it was directed by Marc Webb and featured great stars (Emma Stone, Andrew Garfield, Sally Field) I must say I expected the movie to be more emotional and more character-developed than the old Spider Man movie. I must say I was wrong. Other than Peter Parker (which had a coming-of-age period that was interesting) the characters seem one-note. And it is such a shame because we all know that both Emma and Sally Field has great acting skills. Another problem in the movie was it's villain. The whole lizard thing was weird (him wanting the whole human population to be a lizard). Also, Andrew Garfield's spider man ego didn't match with Peter Parker, and while Spider man was fighting I completely felt that I was watching someone else. The length of the movie also made me killed myself and even Emma Stone with the umbrella couldn't save the extremely unnecessary love scenes. We know that there is going to be a sequel to The Amazing Spider Man. And I know that the only thing that will save that movie is Marc Webb's creativity that we didn't see in this movie. I except something like Expectations-Reality scene from 500 Days of summer in the next movie.… Expand

4 of 10 users found this helpful46

All this user's reviews