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
7
SwatiJul 29, 2013
Well cast and shot, but I think the story was a bit lacking. The 'greatness' that Peter Parker was supposedly destined for according to Uncle Ben was nowhere to be seen. The first half, in which the protagonist is often seen without theWell cast and shot, but I think the story was a bit lacking. The 'greatness' that Peter Parker was supposedly destined for according to Uncle Ben was nowhere to be seen. The first half, in which the protagonist is often seen without the costume, is more engaging. There were some memorable scenes, like the first time Peter talks to Gwen. This is my second favourite movie of the character after Spider Man 2.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Rox22Jan 31, 2013
It was far better than I expected it to be. But was it really necessary to have yet another Spider-Man origin story so soon? Andrew Garfield is far more believable as Peter Parker than Tobey Maguire was but I still feel he doesn't look theIt was far better than I expected it to be. But was it really necessary to have yet another Spider-Man origin story so soon? Andrew Garfield is far more believable as Peter Parker than Tobey Maguire was but I still feel he doesn't look the part. Martin Sheen as Ben Parker & Sally Field as Aunt May were a pleasant surprise, but I feel their faces are far too familiar to be playing such iconic characters. Emma Stone is a pretty good Gwen Stacy. But as someone else here said both Stone & Garfield are perhaps a bit to old for the roles they've been cast in, and they look it. The movie could have been better as it did take a bit too long to build up to Spider-Man's first appearance (about an hour if I remember correctly.) However the Spider-Man of this movie is just perfect. Far more true to the character from the comics. The Lizard was also pretty well portrayed and I'm one of the few who actually liked the new design, it felt more believable. Classic Lizard does look cooler but might have come off too cartooney in live action. Also, it really was a shame that Ben Parker never said his famous "with great power ...." line. I found it really curious as to why they left it out? Overall: A slight improvement on the 2002's Spider-man, but just barely. Hopefully the pacing in the next film will be a bit better without needlessly drawn out expositional scenes.… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
7
Annoymous1Jan 23, 2013
Its a made well movie but not great. Some errors like lines and ageing makes it bad, worst part is that they are 29 and 27. THEY ARE TEENS! They can't be 30 it's like seeing Iron Man be 74. It is a movie likely to succeed but a prequel wouldIts a made well movie but not great. Some errors like lines and ageing makes it bad, worst part is that they are 29 and 27. THEY ARE TEENS! They can't be 30 it's like seeing Iron Man be 74. It is a movie likely to succeed but a prequel would not be high in getting a prequel.… Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
7
nightsharks23Feb 28, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. When I heard that Spider-Man was going to be rebooted, I was not supportive of the idea because I felt the story might not be good, and it's going to be weird seeing Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker /Spider-Man instead of Tobey Maguire. Nevertheless, I saw the Amazing Spider-Man and I was pleasantly surprised about what I saw. Its not perfect, but still manages to be a well creative story. So whats different about this movie? Well, the movie does a better job of telling Peter Parker's back story than the original Spider-Man trilogy. Second is the relationship between Uncle Ben and Peter Parker is a lot better. Third, I loved Uncle Ben in the original film, but I felt like he was side-tracked and I didn't knew much about him. This Uncle Ben is funny, he cares about his Peter, and wants to help him through his troubles. Its a sham that he dies during the movie because I really liked him. All these make the Amazing Spider-Man good, but I still have a few major issues with it. First is Andrew Garfield's dialogue isn't that great. He is good in the suit, but not in the speaking. Second is the characters, Emma Stone is a good actress and she does a good job as Gwen Stacy, but others like Dr. Conners isn't really that interesting, Denis Leary as Gwen's father was disappointing. I like Denis Leary, but I believe this is not one of his better movies, and everyone else is bland. The main problem I have with all these characters is we don't know much about their back story or their motive. Dr. Conners was okay, but I didn't know much about him. Even though the movie is basely on Spider-Man, I want to know about other characters even the scene is only 5 minutes long. The Amazing Spider-Man is a good movie, not one of my personal favorite, but still watchable.… Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
7
ninja_dolphinFeb 3, 2013
As a fan of the original spider-man movie trilogy I was a little concerned over the concept of a re-boot, but marvel did a great job of making it feel fresh. The new actors are definitely stronger than the original which was a nice surprise.As a fan of the original spider-man movie trilogy I was a little concerned over the concept of a re-boot, but marvel did a great job of making it feel fresh. The new actors are definitely stronger than the original which was a nice surprise. I felt the chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone was great and The action was fantastic as we've come to expect from marvel films. The problems I had with the films however were mainly with the familiarity of certain scenes to ones in the original. Obviously we have to see some scenes from the original spider-man again but there was a strong sense of deja-vu in a lot of the scenes. Also the lizard as the villain had the most cliche origin in all of comic books ever. I think this was a amazingly strong reboot and I hope the sequel improves on the fantastic foundation set by this movie!… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
adamSv94Feb 28, 2013
It's not a movie that wins awards and it's not close to reaching the magnificent height of "The Dark Knight", the best super hero-movie to date, but who cares? This film has got just the right amount of action and humour that is expected outIt's not a movie that wins awards and it's not close to reaching the magnificent height of "The Dark Knight", the best super hero-movie to date, but who cares? This film has got just the right amount of action and humour that is expected out of a Spider Man-film, and Andrew Garfield actually makes a great performance as the classic super hero.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
BrianMcCriticMar 15, 2013
I liked the Raimi Spider Man movies (even the third one was ok), but unlike those movies I really liked how Marc Webb handles the relationship between Peter and Gwen.
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
All this user's reviews
7
MovieGuysSep 20, 2013
Two hours long, this reboot of the Spiderman franchise is substantial; a solid film. It is nothing like the original trilogy, but it still keeps your attention for a little bit, occasionally losing focus, then hitting a solid note again. It'sTwo hours long, this reboot of the Spiderman franchise is substantial; a solid film. It is nothing like the original trilogy, but it still keeps your attention for a little bit, occasionally losing focus, then hitting a solid note again. It's a drifting movie looking for a target.… Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
7
Viper8787Apr 27, 2014
An alright superhero movie. I was never a big fan of the first Spiderman movies and not a fan at all of Spiderman in general. He is one of my least favourite superhero's. There were some cool action scenes in this movie to keep me entertainedAn alright superhero movie. I was never a big fan of the first Spiderman movies and not a fan at all of Spiderman in general. He is one of my least favourite superhero's. There were some cool action scenes in this movie to keep me entertained enough but nothing to special at all.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
SpiderPlayerMay 17, 2015
Good movie has great special effects, the relationship between Gwen Stacy and Peter Parker is good the story so that is good, but does not show very well the Spider Man responsibilities.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
vikesh2206Nov 10, 2014
The Amazing Spider-Man is a mostly successful reboot of Spiderman despite having an agonizingly weak antagonist and shared plots with first Spider-Man movie.
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
7
DanRourkeAug 20, 2014
Reboot time! The 2002-2007 Sam Raimi Spiderman franchise came to a close once SM3 disapointed many fans. So long story short the franchise was rebooted. July 6, TASM came . Andrew Garfield starring as Peter/ spiderman and Emma stone starringReboot time! The 2002-2007 Sam Raimi Spiderman franchise came to a close once SM3 disapointed many fans. So long story short the franchise was rebooted. July 6, TASM came . Andrew Garfield starring as Peter/ spiderman and Emma stone starring as gwen stacey. The main villian in this movie is Dr. Conners aka the lizard. Overall the movie was a decent film. I give a 7.8. I did enjoy it though!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
JohnKristoferDec 23, 2014
.This Summer Witness yet Another Spider-Man movie so Sony Can Retain The Rights To It's Character.The Amazing Spider-Man is dark and more mature than the original but lacks story.It brings back the moments that we already saw in the original.This Summer Witness yet Another Spider-Man movie so Sony Can Retain The Rights To It's Character.The Amazing Spider-Man is dark and more mature than the original but lacks story.It brings back the moments that we already saw in the original film and brings back Thing we like about the character Peter Parker/Spider-Man.Andrew Garfield is great being Peter/Spider-Man and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy.Spider-Man looks so good when he's fighting a villain and New York is Just so good too.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
WheelzFourReelzJan 4, 2015
The Amazing Spider-Man is a very enjoyable reboot with fun action and some likeable characters. However, the villain was very weak and there were some moments that were so implausible that they were stupid. Still, the movie is fun andThe Amazing Spider-Man is a very enjoyable reboot with fun action and some likeable characters. However, the villain was very weak and there were some moments that were so implausible that they were stupid. Still, the movie is fun and definitely worth your time.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
DBPirate1129Jan 11, 2015
Definitely doesn't reach the height of the Sam Raimi films and while it may be too early for a Spider-Man reboot, it's worth seeing for any Marvel fan anxious to see another film involving your friendly neighborhood, Spider-Man.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
UrbanlistenerApr 17, 2016
Pretty good movie, it is not original nor exceptional in any way, but its still enjoyable. Andrew Garfield does a great job as Spiderman, the rest of the cast is also very good, the special effects are top-notch and there is some interestingPretty good movie, it is not original nor exceptional in any way, but its still enjoyable. Andrew Garfield does a great job as Spiderman, the rest of the cast is also very good, the special effects are top-notch and there is some interesting aspects that were not seen as much in the Raimi trilogy. The villain is... not that great. Very undeveloped, cliché and incoherent in his quite ridiculous criminal ambitions. There is some writing problems with the script, the movie sometimes feel discombobulated and lazy in the way the story is told. But overall, mostly because of the spiderman aspect and the fun it provides with its action scenes, the movie is watchable and a cool reboot of the franchise.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Epik_NinnjaMay 25, 2015
A reboot already? How rediculous! Well, aside from the fact that this reboot could have waited at least another three years (how can you reboot something after five years?), it's a pretty decent movie. I say decent, as I'd give it a 6.5/10.A reboot already? How rediculous! Well, aside from the fact that this reboot could have waited at least another three years (how can you reboot something after five years?), it's a pretty decent movie. I say decent, as I'd give it a 6.5/10. It's cool to see a new take on his origin, and with a villain not in any previous Spider Man movie (The Lizard). The action is good and so is the CGI. Still, the writing feels weaker than the last Spider Man origin story. I just didn't care for it as much.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
CineAutoctonoJul 21, 2015
He restarted franqicia Spiderman but I 've never seen Andrew Garfield presented as this superhero but good performance , this is worth recognizing his talent. Congratulations , Andrew !
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
gdiego135Jul 7, 2016
Just to let you know this game only has boss battles, you start with a boss battle and then it's just boss after boss after boss, until the end. But the fights are EPIC, I played on Promenade (Easy) because it's fairly difficult, but I willJust to let you know this game only has boss battles, you start with a boss battle and then it's just boss after boss after boss, until the end. But the fights are EPIC, I played on Promenade (Easy) because it's fairly difficult, but I will now go back and play on Furi (Normal) so I can get trophies. Anyway you have to really time all your moves perfectly, dodging and blocking, it gets really intense, and at times theirs plasma flying everywhere. but once you master the gameplay you'll feel like a true bad ass taking down a boss on harder difficulty. Also the graphics look really nice, it's a very unique art style, and the music is quite amazing as well, also the voice acting is great, although you play as a silent protagonist, the other characters have top notch voices. My flaws with this game is that it's just boss fights, like why can't their be weaker enemies you fight to make your way up to a boss, like God of war or other great games. Also their is really no story, your just in a high security prison and now you need to break out. THATS IT. But yeah the gameplay is **** awesome I do reccomend just wish it was longer, and had a story.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
EpicLadySpongeJan 22, 2016
This isn't Spider-Man anymore, this is.... the Amazing Spider-Man! I wouldn't call this amazing, but it's still decent anyways from Spider-Man fans and moviegoers.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
BarneyOnMTJan 5, 2016
WHAT I LIKED: The ironically named 'Marc-Webb's' Spider-Man may not be as true to the source material as Raimi's trilogy, but it's more refined because of it. Here we get a more delicately told origin story, love story, and characterWHAT I LIKED: The ironically named 'Marc-Webb's' Spider-Man may not be as true to the source material as Raimi's trilogy, but it's more refined because of it. Here we get a more delicately told origin story, love story, and character development that everyone can get into. 'The Amazing Spider-Man' is full of excitement and genuinely emotional moments - largely thanks to Andrew Garfield's fresh and modernised portrayal of a conflicted Peter Parker.
WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE: As ever with Spider-Man, it can't quite entirely shake the odd silly elements that plagued the first ones also. For example, the odd villains, and the 'schoolboy hero' who wont ever do the thing the audience wants - which almost passed more in previous versions that took themselves less seriously.
VERDICT: A more serious Spider-Man thanks to Andrew Garfield. Whether you like that or not is the question, but it's arguably a more interesting film because of it.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
FuturedirectorMar 18, 2016
The amazing Spiderman doesn't work with the other Spider-Man's. But the story-telling is interesting, with a great plot and unforgettable characters, with a new Peter Parker and a new villain..., this is an AMAZING Spiderman
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
SrPepeNov 13, 2017
Una buena película con un villano poco convencional y una interesante trama. Posiblemente aparece el mejor cameo de Stan Lee de todos. Sin embargo, pasa sin pena ni gloria.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
KayVen17Jan 11, 2022
Damals konnte ich ihn nicht leiden. Ich wollte krampfhaft Tobey zurück. Trotzdem bin ich nach wie vor positiv überrascht. Er hat zwar Sachen die mir sauer aufstoßen. Zum Beispiel gefällt mir trotz guten Martin Sheen die Darstellung von OnkelDamals konnte ich ihn nicht leiden. Ich wollte krampfhaft Tobey zurück. Trotzdem bin ich nach wie vor positiv überrascht. Er hat zwar Sachen die mir sauer aufstoßen. Zum Beispiel gefällt mir trotz guten Martin Sheen die Darstellung von Onkel Ben nicht. Auch die Erzählung der Eltern ist nicht so mein Geschmack. Klar gibt es Comic-Handlungen mit dieser Interpretation der Eltern. Trotzdem gefallen sie mir auch da nicht.

Trotzdem ist die Chemie zwischen Emma Stone und Garfield super. Leider finde ich Garfield als Peter zu "cool". Hört sich seltsam an, aber da gefällt mir die verpeilte Art von Tobey besser.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
mrdr4gonDec 15, 2017
Very threadbare in terms of the totality of what it is, but everything that it does provide is decent. There's not much to complain about. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are both great though.
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
7
Dragonfly44May 5, 2018
This movie isn’t bad.
It’s just way too overshadowed by the much superior Spider-Man trilogy from 2002-2007. Rating - 75%
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
CoreGamer1408Apr 18, 2023
Garfield is such a likeable actor for sure so maybe thats it? He is my personal draw for this movie and not this version Spider-man. I could watch Garfield all day for sure.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
FilipeNetoNov 8, 2019
Visually grand, with great CGI and sound effects, great soundtrack and costumes ... but there's a lot of work to do in everything else.

Following in the wake of the ream of comic book heroes that DC and Marvel have been promoting, this filmVisually grand, with great CGI and sound effects, great soundtrack and costumes ... but there's a lot of work to do in everything else.

Following in the wake of the ream of comic book heroes that DC and Marvel have been promoting, this film is just one more, and addresses, as it has been done before in the cinema, the iconic figure of Spider-Man, a one of the most remarkable and famous cartoon heroes ever. It has spawned at least one trilogy (around 2000) and has now been recycled to make a few more movies and a few million dollars in profits.

This movie, like many others, tells how teenager Peter Parker became Spider-Man, with all the moral and psychological conflicts associated with such a radical transformation. However, we have seen this so many times that it was difficult to show anything substantially better without changing the character's story, which would be sacrilegious. So the movie just shows what we already know and finally selects a powerful villain from the long list of enemies the character has accumulated over decades of comics, and gives us the decisive confrontation between them.

Andrew Garfield is a decent Peter Parker, but I confess he hasn't always convinced me. He has some annoying face movements, but he does what he needs to do. Emma Stone looked a lot better to me as an actress, but of course this wasn't the movie for her to shine. So he just made a good romantic match, having a good chemistry with Garfield. Rhys Ifans is equally good as a villain. Martin Sheen and Denis Leary also did well.

The film is directed by Marc Webb, who did not know, but who seems to have done a decent job. The problem is that you didn't bet as much as you should on creating a good story and developing the characters and the work of the actors. The concern was, from the beginning, the CGI and the visual and sound effects. And in fact, in this respect the movie is truly excellent. It's a visual show from start to finish, with sweeping New York views, great costumes and photography, and immense camera movement, which gives a feeling of speed and agility to Spider-Man, who flies and jumps like never before. before in the cinema. The soundtrack is also excellent, as epic as you'd expect in such a movie.

I think the movie loses a little compared to other movies with other characters. It is not a movie that stays in memory or can be said to be grand or excellent. Good dialogues are missing, a handful of more complex and developed characters, a more interesting and less trite story. It's a good and entertaining movie, has good production values, good actors and is visually spectacular, but that's basically it.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
DubtrayDec 17, 2021
Cool interpretation of Spider-Man. Story keeps you engaged and interessted enough to care. Feels a bit more youthful than the original interpretation but more mature than the MCU-version. Some good actor performances. Solid superhero movieCool interpretation of Spider-Man. Story keeps you engaged and interessted enough to care. Feels a bit more youthful than the original interpretation but more mature than the MCU-version. Some good actor performances. Solid superhero movie with some storyflaws.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
ValBalNov 21, 2021
Decided to rewatch it before "No way home". I think Garfield does a good job at portraying a teenager but most actors look too old to be high schoolers and sometimes I just found myself not fully believing the struggles that these kids wereDecided to rewatch it before "No way home". I think Garfield does a good job at portraying a teenager but most actors look too old to be high schoolers and sometimes I just found myself not fully believing the struggles that these kids were going through because of that. Other than that Garfield sells an idea of a science genius skateboarder who looks cool and acts cool. Not so much of a nerdy loser but it's okay, this is a different version. I didn't like how they show Uncle Ben's death but then it's never mentioned after that although the effect of what that death meant can be felt in Peter's responsibility to save people of his city. Not a huge fan of the lizard's design and his plan also felt pretty generic and dumb. Spider-man action was great. Dynamic, fun and heroic.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
ErikTheCriticOct 5, 2018
Though the villain in the movie is severely underdeveloped with unclear motivations, the new reboot has exciting thrills and a great portrayal of Spider-Man by Andrew Garfield.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
GenuineBruv2021Oct 25, 2018
This movie isn't a bad movie at all, it feels like a fresh new take on Spider-Man while at the same time it also feels like repetition. I really hate the sub plot with Peter's parents, it really isn't interesting at all to me. I like AndrewThis movie isn't a bad movie at all, it feels like a fresh new take on Spider-Man while at the same time it also feels like repetition. I really hate the sub plot with Peter's parents, it really isn't interesting at all to me. I like Andrew Garfield's portrayal of Peter Parker/Spider-Man, but the movie suffers from some tonal issues. The movie tries to be dark and depressing at times and it comes off as lazy and rushed. The train scene in the beginning of the movie is so badly edited its almost irritating, the villain's motivations are down right stupid. Dr Conners wants to turn the whole city into lizards for some reason, it just doesn't make sense, and it takes too long for the movie to get going. It spends most of the run time setting things up and it becomes boring after a while. The acting is solid and there is a lot of chemistry with Peter and Gwen (the actors were dating at the time so that's why). This movie does feel like a breathe of fresh air in a way. Overall The Amazing Spider-Man is a good movie with some major flaws that mostly have to do with the plot and pacing of the movie.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
TomtagApr 14, 2019
It wasn't as good as the earlier franchise but it had revealed more thinga we should know about Spider-Man
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
MLR_9902Jun 11, 2019
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Amazing Spider-Man opens with a young Peter playing hide and seek with his father. I find this funny since Peter spends the whole movie looking for a father figure, he finds the spider trying to find closure with Campbell Scott's Richard Parker his actual father, he loses Martin Sheen's uncle Ben because he takes the father he has for granted, he creates The Lizard by trying to fix Rhys Ifans' Dr. Connors' arm (or his 'broken piece') in doing this Peter tries to fix his own fatherless void (in other words Peter's 'broken piece'). In doing all of this another father figure, Denis Leary's Captain Stacy loses his life. One might say The Amazing Spider-Man is about father-less voids and filling those voids, or one might say it is about fatherhood, or one might say that the opening scene is a metaphor for Peter's character arc and his motivation, 'a young Peter Parker goes looking for his father'. So Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker has 'daddy issues', what do 'daddy issues' or abandonment do to a kid? Well Garfield's Peter Parker starts the movie as a very unlikeable character, he's irresponsible, he skateboards down the hall acting some what 'rebellious', he's got a chip on his shoulder and he is definitely not afraid to show it. The whole point is that Garfield's Peter Parker is selfish. He starts this film completely and utterly selfish, I understand why this film loses Spider-Man fans because he is still this selfish kid after he dawns the Spider-Man suit. We as audience members usually associate the dawning of the suit as the completion of a character arc, like in the Sam Raimi movie, but this is not the case with The Amazing Spider-Man, after he finally makes the suit he becomes even more of an unlikeable character, laughs it about the entire time, he forgets Sally Field's Aunt May's eggs. He tells a police officer, "I just did 80% of your job and this is how you repay me?", he then takes the police officer's gun and throws it away and makes his escape. He shows up late and dirty to Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy's family dinner and causes an argument with her father Captain Stacy. He is pretty much only Spider-Man to find Uncle Ben's killer, he doesn't like cops, he doesn't like authority. He has no intention of helping anyone but himself, like I said, selfish. Spider-Man's motivation isn't guilt at this point, it's vengeance, vengeance on Uncle Ben's killer, vengeance on anyone who ever makes him look small. This is why he tortures the car thief, it's the bullying victim becoming the bully. You're probably thinking that's not Spider-Man-like or heroic at all, but that's the point. This is why Captain Stacy says things like, "He's hunting down a bunch of criminals that all look the same, like he's got some personal vendetta, but he's not protecting innocent people. Mr. Parker" Peter isn't protecting innocent people, he's doing anything remotely heroic and the film knows it. He isn't acting like Spider-Man... Not yet, Peter Parker truly becomes Spider-Man at the bridge scene. This is were Spider-Man and The Lizard finally meet and this forces Peter to finally act like a real hero. Peter is trying to save a kid in his car that has been tossed over the bridge by The Lizard. Now this kid gives off a familiar vibe. The kid is like Peter. Spider-Man is trying to save this little boy, Peter is trying to save this boy, He does this by giving the kid the mask, this gives him courage to climb up the car that's literally hanging by a thread to Peter. The mask, Spider-Man's mask gives the boy courage to be saved by Peter, The mask gives Peter the courage to save the boy. In this moment Peter is not selfish, he really is a hero, but what happens next? Spider-Man brings the boy back to his father. Spider-Man reunites this boy with his father, Peter gives the boy something Peter can never have again, he acts completely out of selflessness for the first time in the film, by doing that he's finally able to truly call himself "Spider-Man". This moment on the bridge is the birth of Spider-Man and every thing Spider-Man stands for. Watching Peter go from an egotistical, selfish, vengeful person, to becoming a selfless hero is a very powerful and amazing character arc. This is what I really like from this Movie. Peter is always facing the consequences of his selfishness, the death of Uncle Ben and the lecture from Captain Stacy help him realise who he is truely meant to be. Personally I believe the writing of this film is really good, but it is not great. As I was watching I saw many flaws and plot holes in the film. Basically the main problem for the film is the writing. It's great at times but really lazy at other times. Otherwise the rest of the film is pretty good. The acting is great from all the cast. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have great chemistry. Any scene with them two in it is great to watch. Marc Webb is a great director. The score is brilliant. If I could, I would give this movie a 7.5, It's not a 7, or an 8… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
pur__0_0__Apr 6, 2021
I'm gonna be absolutely clear with this one - I absolutely love this interpretation of Spider-Man, except for the fact that he occasionally doesn't act like him. And I really wanted to like this movie. I played its game and it was really fun.I'm gonna be absolutely clear with this one - I absolutely love this interpretation of Spider-Man, except for the fact that he occasionally doesn't act like him. And I really wanted to like this movie. I played its game and it was really fun. But the movie, well, let's just say it had a lot of potential.

Finally Peter Parker is shown to always have a passion for photography. He's beaten up for not taking a picture of a bully bothering a schoolmate. If I were him I'd have taken a picture and shown it to the Principal and gotten that bully suspended, but let's assume this Peter Parker isn't as bright. Later he visits Oscorp, gets bitten by the spider and becomes Spider-Man.

I really like how they showed Spider-Man slowly turning into Spider-Man. In the beginning he is unable to understand why he has all these powers, then he starts seeing everything is sticking to him and he reacts on his own. Afterwards he is upgrading his suit accordingly to suit the needs. He makes his own device to shoot webs. The Sam Raimi trilogy had convinced anyone who didn't read the comics that Spider-Man's webs come out of his body, but it's not true. This movie clarified it.

The main antagonist of this movie is Lizard. As someone who has read the original The Amazing Spider-Man comic where Spider-Man encounters Lizard for the first time, I can guarantee you that that story should have been used here. It was way better than the "Spider-Man finds enemy in the gutter" plot. In the comic he goes to the jungles in Florida and finds Dr Curt Connor's family over there. Also originally Dr Connors used to DRINK the medicine to become Lizard, not inject it. I don't see why he'd choose to go by the more painful method.

And of course Uncle Ben dies. But unlike Spider-Man he didn't die in a climactic moment. He just died of his own stupidity. And later on no one gives a damn about his death. It doesn't make any difference at all.

The Amazing Spider-Man is an underexplored idea that should have been using a lot more stories than it did. Rather than entire squishing everything in the sequel, this should have added one more concept from the sequel, more preferably establishing that Peter and Harry were friends. That would have given content to this movie and made the sequel more convincing.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Cementer200Sep 22, 2020
I liked The Amazing Spider-Man. it is a good reboot of spider-man. the story is your usual spider-man origin story.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
geewahJan 11, 2021
Garfield isn't a bad Spider-Man and most of action scenes are great, it's just that we all by now know the origin story pretty well
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
mikesgold2KFeb 8, 2022
nie jest taki najgorszy jaki ludzie opowiadają, błyszczy na polu relacji Petera i Gwen, szkoda, że złoczyńca nie trzyma już takiego poziomu i dobrych motywacji
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
PhoenixReveiwsMar 9, 2021
This movie is better than people give it credit for. It isn't as good as sam raimi's spiderman 1 and 2 along with the MCU's spiderman. But it's better than sam raimi's spiderman 3. It is good, but it does get forgotten by others. With funThis movie is better than people give it credit for. It isn't as good as sam raimi's spiderman 1 and 2 along with the MCU's spiderman. But it's better than sam raimi's spiderman 3. It is good, but it does get forgotten by others. With fun moment this is an enjoyable film that I do have fun watching from time to time.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
FloroOct 17, 2021
The plot is very mediocre and the last hour is very rushed. The film is not really a good origin story but it does have some redeeming such as Peter's arc and the soundtrack. It is a good movie to watch once but never again.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
HeroicAge616Oct 26, 2021
The Amazing Spider-Man offers a promising slate of ideas for Andrew Garfield's tenure as the character, smartly offering a take completely fresh from what came before.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
RS92Dec 4, 2021
Una buona ripartenza di brand.

The Amazing Spider-Man è un ottimo film, pacato nei modi, tranquillo ma soddisfacente. Lizard mi è piaciuto molto.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
BullyMaguireDec 2, 2021
I still like this movie as there are some genuinely really great things about the movie such as the acting and the music as well as the action scenes. First off Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is much better than Kirsten as MJ. And Andrew GarfieldI still like this movie as there are some genuinely really great things about the movie such as the acting and the music as well as the action scenes. First off Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is much better than Kirsten as MJ. And Andrew Garfield as Spiderman I thought was good as acting-wise he does a better job than Tobey and he does get the character of both Peter Parker and Spiderman (although Tobey is still the best Peter Parker). But overall the plot was kind of mediocre the I was not a fan of the dark tone, and the Lizard while cool was kind of a boring villain. the movie also isn't very rewatchable in my opinion as there just not as fun as the Raimi movies.… Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
7
Fixer84Mar 15, 2023
Not the best Spider-Man movie, it seems to be a sort of half-remake of Raimi's first film, but it's well made.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
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
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
6
TVJerryJul 10, 2012
This reboot follows the familiar storyline: nerdy Peter Parker (played by Andrew Garfield) has a crush on a girl (Emma Stone), gets bit by a spider, discovers his powers, makes a suit and combats an evil nemesis. This is Garfield's star turn.This reboot follows the familiar storyline: nerdy Peter Parker (played by Andrew Garfield) has a crush on a girl (Emma Stone), gets bit by a spider, discovers his powers, makes a suit and combats an evil nemesis. This is Garfield's star turn. He brings a personality to the part that makes him constantly charming, even though his emotional side just keeps turning on the water works. The story starts with promise and the early discovery scenes are entertaining, but as the film develops, it falls apart. The action scenes are often muddled and over-edited. The lizard villain looks fake. The pacing lags more than once. Other than Garfield, there's not much here's to recommend. NOTE: Stay thru the first part of the credits for a sequel teaser.… Expand
0 of 5 users found this helpful05
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
jsp41Jul 3, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This reboot of spiderman is in no way bad, but definitely has room for improvement. To start off, everything looks great, the web slinging, spidey in his suit, and the Lizard. Andrew Garfield is a much better Peter Parker than Tobey Maguire, and I loved all of his smart quips during fights, its just a classic Spider-man thing and I really loved how Garfield played this role. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy was likable, but overall was much more under developed compared to Parker and Dr. Connors. Speaking of Connors, he was awesome...until he became the Lizard. The Lizard was a good choice as the leads villain, but just didn't pose a huge threat to Peter or Spidey as I had hoped he would. My major problem with the movie as whole, however, was that Peter never found the guy who killed Uncle Ben, and I realize that maybe he realized what he was doing was immature as Capt. Stacy (played by a surprisingly good Dennis Leary) knocked Spidey for beating on criminals of the same type, but the director could have at least had more closure to the whole story arc, and it just abruptly ended as the Lizard came into play. All in all, a solid superhero movie that has room to grow into something great and I can safely say that I am looking forward to where this iteration of Spider-man goes in the future.… Expand
1 of 5 users found this helpful14
All this user's reviews
6
MagnificentMJul 3, 2012
This version of the Spider-Man franchise is definitely better than the original, but it gets hung up on some of the same problems. The cast was my favorite part of the movie, lead by Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Martin Sheen, Sally Fields,This version of the Spider-Man franchise is definitely better than the original, but it gets hung up on some of the same problems. The cast was my favorite part of the movie, lead by Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Martin Sheen, Sally Fields, and Rhys Ifan. Each of them did a wonderful job of making their characters feel very real and genuine. The effects were really good as well (except for the lizard, which looked really weird). My big problem with this film is that it spent a little too much time on exposition and it relies on some of the same old super hero cliches and sentimentality making the movie seem "cheap" at times. It's also follows a very similar path as the original Spider-Man, and even though the filmmakers pulled it off, I wish they could have taken it in a different direction. But the bottom line is that it's an entertaining, better than average super hero movie, and I'm kinda looking forward to a sequel.… Expand
1 of 5 users found this helpful14
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
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
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
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
Beast73Jul 5, 2012
This film is ok and quite enjoyable, Garfield is a good spiderman and peter parker and the on screen chemistry between him and stone is good. The CGI is good and for once in an action film you can actually see what is going on rather than theThis film is ok and quite enjoyable, Garfield is a good spiderman and peter parker and the on screen chemistry between him and stone is good. The CGI is good and for once in an action film you can actually see what is going on rather than the usual blurry sequences we get these days. its about time film makers slowed things down just a touch so we can see the action and enjoy it. This film manages it. When the film was over some guy next to me was clapping, for my money this film in no way deserves this show of appreciation but it is a good effort. One of the better comic book films and i preferred it over raimis efforts.… Expand
0 of 4 users found this helpful04
All this user's reviews
6
MattInRCJul 3, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Does The Amazing Spider-Man usher in an exciting new chapter in the franchise or signal yet another reboot?

I have joined millions of moviegoers in condemning the horrid Spider-Man 3, a film that put the once-proud franchise into a coma with a single dance scene. But there were more issues to that film than just the sidestepping: the product felt tired and bereft of imagination, as if our hero needed a partner or a major shakeup. Throwing too many substandard enemies at one hero never solved anything, but that's exactly what we got. Something needed to change, but was a reboot really necessary? That was Sony's call; and so five years after Tobey Maguire and company were shown the door, the lights dim for The Amazing Spider-Man.

Sadly, The Amazing Spider-Man is too drawn out, uninspiring, and downright boring. Its disappointment is so profound that it's a far cry from Spider-Man 1 & 2 and the worst superhero movie since Green Lantern. You all know the story: Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) is bitten by a genetically-enhanced spider and wakes up with enhanced abilities. Yet, this is where the similarities between Sam Raimi's films and the current one end: webbing emanates from a man-made source, Mary Jane has been replaced by Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), and even Parker's biological parents are Oscorp doctors who pass off young Peter to Aunt May (Sally Field, Norma Rae) and Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) before meeting an untimely end. Fast forward several years, and both Parker and Stacy are high school classmates, not twenty-somethings as were portrayed in the Raimi films. Stacy has inexplicably landed a cushy internship with Oscorp and its chief researcher Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who is seeking to reconstruct severed human limbs (including his own) in an effort to prolong human life. Connors worked with Parker's father (Campbell Scott) on the same recipe, only to see his work stifled with a missing formula that Peter discovers in dad's old briefcase. And just like the comics, Connors tests the newly-completed serum on himself, turning into the superhuman monster The Lizard. Rattled by the death of Uncle Ben and the news of Connor's transformation, Peter must balance his new powers with the realization that everyone close to him is at risk of the same violent ends if he remains Spider-Man. On the surface, it seems many of these resets would signal a new-found respect by Sony to remain faithful to the Marvel universe. But, consider this blasphemous alteration: almost everyone in the city knows Spider-Man's true identity, from a young boy stuck in a burning van to the police captain running the manhunt for the webslinger (Dennis Leary). There's even a suggestion that Aunt May herself has put two and two together after seeing Peter return home bruised and battered near the movie's ending. Why screenwriter James Vanderbilt would at first show such respect for canon then throw grenades like this into the middle of his script is beyond me. Either he assumes we're not fully vested with the character to begin with, or we're just ignorant moviegoers who consume and forget when the lights kick on. Either way, this insult doesn't help indie Director Marc Webb, who tries his best to paint pretty action scenes (such as several first-person views of Spider-Man slinging his way through the city) but fails to achieve anything new or exciting. And while our promising cast does its best with Vanderbilt's sub-par script, bad screenplays always trump good acting, a fact which is demonstrated in some of the cheesiest dialogue I've heard from the franchise ("I've been bitten - so have I," says our leads as Parker shares all). While capable actors, Garfield and Stone have little chemistry together and seem like an odd pairing from the start. Moreover, the story takes too long to develop, forcing audiences to wait 45 minutes before seeing any real action, none of which is satisfying or even inventive even in 3D. In fact, many of them feel like retreads of Raimi's efforts, demonstrating the incredible command he had of the character.

Anyone who tells you this film is exciting or even a well-drawn character-driven story has obviously not seen The Avengers. Had The Amazing Spider-Man debuted sometime in the spring, perhaps my reaction would have been different. Once again that was Sony's call to make, and their product is so much the worse for it. Why they decided it was time to reboot, rather than reload, will confound moviegoers until one considers the contract, which requires the studio to produce a film every so many years, or lose the rights to Marvel. Therefore, The Amazing Spider-man is essentially a contract extension, doomed by a boring and plodding script and a post-credits scene that felt incomplete and largely ineffective. Let's hope Marvel can someday wrestle Spider-Man away from Sony, because very little about this version is inspiring or even worth the time.… Expand
2 of 7 users found this helpful25
All this user's reviews
6
theahsanhaseebJul 8, 2012
Honestly, I expected a lot when I heard about a reboot for the first time. First of all, Spider-Man NEVER needed a reboot. Previous films were really good, with the exception of Spider-Man 3. This film left so many things uncovered and itHonestly, I expected a lot when I heard about a reboot for the first time. First of all, Spider-Man NEVER needed a reboot. Previous films were really good, with the exception of Spider-Man 3. This film left so many things uncovered and it felt like I am watching something in fast-forward. I am only giving it 6 marks because "the director also stated that the origin story will unfold not just in this film but in the planned films to come" and it is possible that the sequels might be better than this film. On the acting part, Neither Andrew nor Emma acted good. All the people going crazy after Andrew Garfield should notice the fact that the film was about Spider-Man, not the former. BUT I really admire the visual effects the film utilized and the creativity in respect of the stunts and the action-sequences was better than the previous films.… Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
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
djm229Jul 3, 2012
For a reboot, it was okay. The Lizard was okay, but I'm wondering if the producers knew that the Lizard was not that interesting in the comic version prior. The actor (Andrew Garfield) did alright while Spiderman, but while Peter Parker,For a reboot, it was okay. The Lizard was okay, but I'm wondering if the producers knew that the Lizard was not that interesting in the comic version prior. The actor (Andrew Garfield) did alright while Spiderman, but while Peter Parker, makes me sad for the actor and I guess for young Peter. Aunt May is supposed to be about as innocent as a senior citizen in the big city can be; Sally Field honestly didn't fill the shoes as well as her predecessor Rosemary Harris (btw, I like Sally Field, this just wasn't her part). Emma Stone and her character were actually the bright lights of the casting. Even Martin Sheen (whom I love as an actor) didn't really add to or improve on the prior Ben Parker. Last note: The standard Marvel teaser at the end of the credits - total flop - did nothing to make me want to see any upcoming Marvel movies, did not whet my appetite for more ... nothing. Best thing about it was that it lasted perhaps a minute.
If I knew then what I know now, I'd have saved the money and waited for DVD.… Expand
4 of 10 users found this helpful46
All this user's reviews
6
Steve101Jul 7, 2012
Well, its far from the best spider-man movie made. However, I still found this movie a half descent flick. I also (And i know everyone is going to disagree with me, but..) thought this movie was better than the Avengers. So, yeah, it wasWell, its far from the best spider-man movie made. However, I still found this movie a half descent flick. I also (And i know everyone is going to disagree with me, but..) thought this movie was better than the Avengers. So, yeah, it was pretty cheesy at some parts, and Spidey was a bit too self centred (My uncle got murdered, Im gonna go kick the crap out of everyone), but it was still a descent flick. Character development was satisfactory, and I somehow liked the transition from webs loaded into wrists to technologically invented webs. It just fit the story better.… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
6
ShiranaiJul 5, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Dear Mark Webb. Is your name Christopher Nolan? No? THEN WHY THE HELL ARE YOU PRETENDING TO BE?!?! Full disclosure here I actually review movies and videogames professionally this is not a professional review this is a fan's livid rant about how my fellow peers can rate an average movie so highly. I have to give Mr Webb credit for being bold. He tries a lot of new ideas some work but most don't. The plot changes itself in the middle of the movie not once but twice. I don't know who to blame here. i never expected much from this movie since hearing about it two years ago, but after seeing some of the previews I thought maybe just maybe it might not be half bad. Unfortunately I was horribly horribly wrong. What is it everyone loves about this movie? The story of the movie is just as lost and confused as the rest of us. I thought Emma Stone looked quite a bit like Gwen Stacy I think she did a decent job. I think Garfield did as best as he could with the script given to him he certainly moved like Spider-Man did, but why was his character portrayed so far from what makes Peter Parker? I really don't know who is at fault here I think enough went wrong that it isn't possible for one person to take the blame for all of it. I would recommend seeing it so you can understand just how horribly things went wrong. I would like to ask my fellow peers just how many of you sucked Stan Lee's dick to give this average movie such a high rating. Very little is ever resolved. The whole movie feels like they filmed about 6 hours worth of footage, and a few months before the movie was set to release they realized they were out of time, and said ok just watch the footage and give me 2 and a half hours worth of decent material. Then we all give it to the editors and work or magic. Audiences are so gullible and trusting now so they will just take whatever we give them as long as we throw some cool special effects in there to whet their appetite. Why am I so angry you ask? This movie was meant to "correct" whatever Canon issues the Sam Raimi films had. It does the exact opposite. They change the personality of Peter Parker ENTIRELY from "canon" He is a somewhat loner skater kid? I was waiting for Avril Lavigne sk8er boi to kick in in the background. Peter was bullied he doesn't save others from bullies he was NEVER a popular kid. Furthermore what happens to the vengeance? Ya we know he won't go through with it but the entire thing is dropped. They spend 20 minutes of the movie setting it up just to drop it entirely? Oh and what happened to the dialogue in EVERY trailer of Kurt Konners telling Peter "You think this was a coincidence?" I think we all know where the story would have gone, problem is it didn't exist in the movie. Whatever plot used to be in the movie, and isn't is advertised heavily in the trailer. This movie pissed me off but it pisses me off more that so many of my peers are freaking sell outs. It isn't horrible but it is far from Amazing. Who do we blame editing department? Director? Writer? Pushy Producers? They changed just about everything about Spider-man yet they claimed this would be more "true" to the original. And most importantly. WHY THE HELL DID HALF THE FREAKING PEOPLE IN THE MOVIE KNOW WHO HE WAS?… Expand
2 of 7 users found this helpful25
All this user's reviews
6
Glennking439Jul 8, 2012
It's been five years since audiences have seen a Peter Parker on the big screen. Five years without any blockbuster spider man movie. People around the world including myself have been waiting so long for a good spider man movie...and we gotIt's been five years since audiences have seen a Peter Parker on the big screen. Five years without any blockbuster spider man movie. People around the world including myself have been waiting so long for a good spider man movie...and we got this. What should have been "Spider Man 4" is the slow paced, awfully acted, stupid joke movie known as "The Amazing Spider Man". I feel this movie could have done a lot better if it was just called "The Spider Man". This movie was not amazing. It was very childish and insulted what Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire have done over the years. The only thing this movie has going for it is It's Visual Effects and the acting of Sally Field as Aunt May. Besides that, this movie is nothing special and should not be seen unless you are going to get the DVD.… Expand
1 of 5 users found this helpful14
All this user's reviews
6
nms1215Jul 8, 2012
I was very disappointed by this film. It seems like the writers took a copy of the Toby McGuire Spiderman script, broke it down scene-by-scene and said "We can top that." Each scene felt as though it was over the top--they made everything inI was very disappointed by this film. It seems like the writers took a copy of the Toby McGuire Spiderman script, broke it down scene-by-scene and said "We can top that." Each scene felt as though it was over the top--they made everything in the story personally connected to Parker/Spiderman. I felt as though I was watching a Spiderman film geared toward teenage girls (seriously? handsome skateboarding rebel Peter Parker?). Add in awkward and abrupt cuts, and sarcasm in serious moments, viewers just don't know when it is appropriate to laugh or cry.

Having said that, I enjoyed the villain Lizard much more than the Green Goblin, and the CGI throughout the movie was excellent. My favorite scene was the first person view during Spiderman's first web-slinging.

If you have seen the original with McGuire and are looking for more than a cheesy romance and exciting web-slinging combat, I would recommend waiting for a less expensive view.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 63 Normal
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL