The Amazing Spider-Man
Columbia Pictures | Release Date: July 3, 2012
7.1
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 2132 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,467
Mixed:
464
Negative:
201
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
next
Page:
More From This Movie

66 Critic Reviews

7.1 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 77 Project Hail Mary
2 75 Send Help
3 73 Hoppers
4 72 The Sheep Detectives
5 68 Crime 101
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL