The Amazing Spider-Man

6

MrPajamasSep 26, 2020

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

JJ2FAS4UDec 30, 2021

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

DarkwingSchmuckMar 12, 2022

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

BKMJul 5, 2012

Reboots are all the rage these days (I suspect we'll have an Avengers reboot at some point) so it's not surprising that the Spider-Man franchise has been torn apart and rebuilt with a new director, cast and villain. But was it reallyReboots are all the rage these days (I suspect we'll have an Avengers reboot at some point) so it's not surprising that the Spider-Man franchise has been torn apart and rebuilt with a new director, cast and villain. But was it really necessary to start from scratch so soon? While that can be debated, the film itself is a letdown thanks in large part to its attempts to present a darker and hipper Spidey than we are accustomed to. Peter Parker rides a skateboard? He barely even has to try to win the affections of Gwen Stacey? None of this feels true to the web slinger's roots. But the biggest problem is that Marc Webb and his creative team haven't made the franchise their own. Ultimately The Amazing Spider-Man feels too carefully plotted out and safe when it needs to take risks and find its own identity.… Expand

7 of 15 users found this helpful78

All this user's reviews

5

kristen58Jul 6, 2012

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

24 of 39 users found this helpful2415

All this user's reviews

5

KarthXLRJul 7, 2012

Overly-erratic and not developed enough to surpass a two-hour runtime. Andrew Garfield has nothing to work with as Peter Parker and he never gets to develop his character as Spider-Man due to spontaneous action sequences. Oh, and the trailersOverly-erratic and not developed enough to surpass a two-hour runtime. Andrew Garfield has nothing to work with as Peter Parker and he never gets to develop his character as Spider-Man due to spontaneous action sequences. Oh, and the trailers are misleading. No new information is doled out in this movie about Parker's parents, they didn't even develop that story save for a 10-second teaser in the end credits.

Not necessarily bad, just completely forgettable.… Expand

7 of 15 users found this helpful78

All this user's reviews

5

txrangersfan72Jul 7, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. As a comic book geek for the past 3 decades, I'm a little more critical than most. However, "The Amazing Spider-Man" gets some things right, comic book-wise, but gets a lot wrong. And from a movie perspective, it's really quite weak. Overall, it's an amazing, albeit expected, disappointment.
First, let's talk about what The Amazing Spider-Man did right. Andrew Garfield's portrayal of Spider-Man and Peter Parker were very good. He was skinny, gawky, **** and funny. He WAS Ditko's Spidey. I loved him as much as I loved Tobey. And that is saying a LOT. They included his love and aptitude for science. His dialogue while dealing with common criminals was very accurate with a teenager given a little bit of power, yet not realizing the responsibility that comes with it. Painful lessons then ensued to bring said **** teenager back down to Earth. This interpretation of the teenage mind was actually better than the original trilogy. In addition, the creation of his web shooters being a product of Oscorp that he essentially weaponizes was a perfect modern take on them, and another improvement on the original trilogy. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy was absolutely adorable. Her strength, personality and sheer cuteness (even though I prefer the red hair...I have such a thing for red hair) complemented Andrew's portrayal well, especially as they interacted more and the story progressed.
While I was hesitant about the Lizard as a primary villain, they wove him into the story so well that I was pleasantly surprised to find him so interesting. While Rhys Ifans did a great job as Dr. Connors was a much better selection for portraying the raging Lizard, I always liked Dylan Baker's Dr. Connors. The key to making the Lizard a suitable primary villain, though, was weaving him into a story with some depth, which they did. He was centralized very well with not only a reason to become the Lizard, but also a reason to tie him into Peter/Spidey. Also, fixing the problem they had with the portrayal of Venom, the Lizard was larger than life, ominous and a physically superior being to Spider-Man. Finally, while it took until end to finally see it, the last scene with Peter and Aunt May established a very good chemistry and character element to the overall story. I look forward to seeing this blossom in the future movies as it greatly exceeds the original casting by Raimi. At first I was concerned about May not being portrayed as old enough, but in the end, it worked.
All of the good things above transpired in the second half of the film, which made me actually stay because, while I've only walked out of two movies in my life (Dune and the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), this was very close to being my third. The first hour of The Amazing Spider-Man was mind-numblingly boring. I was not aware they were seriously going to redo and/or retell his entire origin. The "untold story" required it, apparently. For those who love the ACTUAL origin story and loved the way Raimi told it, this was a kick to the crotch. It was insulting. It was unnecessary. It was so very badly done. It, frankly, ruined the movie for me. I think there was a way to weave the actual origin into this without redoing it all. Next, the script. While the second half of the movie added meat to this new origin, which made the rest of the film tolerable, the dialogue was complete crap. As much as Andrew and Emma seemed good together, the dialogue between them tried repeatedly to screw it up. It was weak, fake and hard to watch. Completely unnatural for two people who appeared to have chemistry.
Next, the directing. Direction in this film is clumsy, spotty and elementary. Some action scenes are good, some are choreographed and/or edited very poorly. The camerawork during the Emma/Andrew scenes meant to bring them together and have the viewer care about the relationship developing, misses the mark completely. Editing may be more at fault here, especially during action sequences, but the qualitative variance from scene to scene smack of a poorly directed film.
In the end, while I am always a sucker for comic book movies, especially beloved ones like Spider-Man, nothing happened in The Amazing Spider-Man to warrant dumping Raimi and the original cast. As bad as some may have thought Spider-Man 3 was, this movie did absolutely nothing to prove this was the right direction in which to go. Yet, based on audience and critical reaction, as well as the press around the mid-credit surprise ending piece, two more movies have been announced to tell yet another trilogy. Hopefully this movie will improve over time as the story unfolds, but with Christopher Nolan's Batman/Dark Knight masterpieces and Raimi's original bar set, there is no reason this movie shouldn't have been able to stand on its own, independent of supporting story lines in later films.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

5

jsowersJul 19, 2012

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

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

5

billrullerJul 29, 2012

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

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

HfahmyAug 14, 2012

Nothing new. Replica of the previous Spider Man. He falls in love with a girl he can never marry, his mentor is killed again, but spider man didn't catch the killer this time. The fight is against his father co-researcher, who tries to find aNothing new. Replica of the previous Spider Man. He falls in love with a girl he can never marry, his mentor is killed again, but spider man didn't catch the killer this time. The fight is against his father co-researcher, who tries to find a formula to restore lost organs as he is one handed, but instead the formula changes him into a monstrous lizard who kills and destroys. A war flares between spider man and this monster. Nothing special, spider man wins at the last moment, his girl father dies and urges him to leave his daughter, needless to say, his girl father is the chief officer in charge of arresting spider man. Poor scenario, traditional plot, well done picture taking and scenes. Anyhow, must see movie, not genuinely entertaining though.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

DuffladJul 18, 2012

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

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

5

Friskytiger81Oct 25, 2012

In an industry full of unnecessary actions, the decision to revamp "Spider-man" not a decade since the redeux was first redone reeks of greed to the point of making this unenjoyable. Yes, it'd be better than "Spider-man" if only it were madeIn an industry full of unnecessary actions, the decision to revamp "Spider-man" not a decade since the redeux was first redone reeks of greed to the point of making this unenjoyable. Yes, it'd be better than "Spider-man" if only it were made before it, but it wasn't. This is more realistic, less involved in the comic-book character, and more in our world. Yes still, after a new Batman, "Spider-man" feels irrelevant.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

5

HipsteranJul 12, 2012

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

4 of 10 users found this helpful46

All this user's reviews

5

dragonbillzNov 28, 2012

I felt like I was watching a repeat of a story told not long ago. I feel like there was no need to reboot this story. My kids were watching this movie with me and they were familiar with the Spider Man story as well. I felt the movie fellI felt like I was watching a repeat of a story told not long ago. I feel like there was no need to reboot this story. My kids were watching this movie with me and they were familiar with the Spider Man story as well. I felt the movie fell short at some points and we were bored waiting for the next action scene to come along. I think there was too much focus on Peter Parkers backstory and love interest. Usually when you do a reboot there have been major advances in technology and you can use this to tell the story better thru technology. I felt like the first Spiderman gave you more excitement when Spidey was swinging thru the city of New York at lightning speeds and bouncing off walls. I think the first film was better.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

DTDunnNov 14, 2012

An entertaining film, but about a subject matter than has been done perhaps one too many times. My spidey-sense tells me they need to give this franchise a long rest.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

bosnianNov 12, 2012

Far from perfect (or Spiderman 2), but not bad either (like Spiderman 3). Everything seems to work well, there is just nothing exceptional. Decent summer movie.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

GreatMartinJul 13, 2012

All I could think of while watching

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

5

lahaine2012Nov 4, 2012

The Amazing Spider-man was an almost decent summer flick, which seemed as if it could possibly surpass the original Spider-man films. It did for some parts, but ultimately collapsed by the end. I must admit, this adaptation of Spider-man wasThe Amazing Spider-man was an almost decent summer flick, which seemed as if it could possibly surpass the original Spider-man films. It did for some parts, but ultimately collapsed by the end. I must admit, this adaptation of Spider-man was a friskier and wittier one, which moves at a clip; and Peter Parker's scientific ingenuity and sharp comic sense are well fleshed out. Marc Webb (of (500) Days of Summer) knows how to direct romantic elements which is possibly the films high point, even more so than the action sequences which were uncreative and gravely disappointing. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy replacing Mary-Jane) can be considered improvements of their predecessors. And though it was a fun watch, and the beautifully dizzying cinematography and effects kept me glued, I can't help but feel a great sense of Deja vu. Seeing that the original film ended only a few years ago, why bother with a remake? It didn't break new ground nor radically set itself apart from the original, so why bother? This was simply rehash that didn… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

seancriswellJul 24, 2012

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

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

5

TheDRauchJul 27, 2012

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

ClaymixJul 3, 2012

A less involving remake of a movie that should have been left alone. While I think The Amazing Spider-Man did a fantastic job of representing Peter Parker, the rest of the movie just sort of flopped about, switching between humor and drama soA less involving remake of a movie that should have been left alone. While I think The Amazing Spider-Man did a fantastic job of representing Peter Parker, the rest of the movie just sort of flopped about, switching between humor and drama so abruptly and randomly, you are left wondering if you should be feeling sad or amused during scenes. The movie never really got going or got me as the viewer involved, so most attempts at drama failed. Additionally, the movie is incredibly long and drawn out, and I found myself wishing it would end.

Don't get me wrong, the movie is not terrible. It is well made and well written. There's just... something about it that makes it very distant from the viewer. It took too long to get going and even then never really established itself.… Expand

9 of 30 users found this helpful921

All this user's reviews

5

robbocroftJul 25, 2012

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

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

5

nickgreene11Jul 5, 2012

This film is okay. Everything you expect, nothing you don't. List all of the superhero clichés and you'll find them. It isn't a smart movie in any aspect. Bad dialogue, questionable cutting. What frustrates me the most is all of theThis film is okay. Everything you expect, nothing you don't. List all of the superhero clichés and you'll find them. It isn't a smart movie in any aspect. Bad dialogue, questionable cutting. What frustrates me the most is all of the missed opportunities to take this rich universe and say something meaningful with it. Where it has the opportunity to soar, it strolls and plays it safe.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

5

ConscriptJul 11, 2012

As a summer movie, the Amazing Spider-man is great. As a movie though, wow is it bad. The editing for the film is just awful. It is incredibly apparent early in the movie that huge, huge chunks of the story have been edited out at the lastAs a summer movie, the Amazing Spider-man is great. As a movie though, wow is it bad. The editing for the film is just awful. It is incredibly apparent early in the movie that huge, huge chunks of the story have been edited out at the last second and only a scant few of the glaring holes are covered by re-shoots. Firstly, it is very noticeable that everything promised by every single trailer, even those in the month up to the film, was removed. There is no untold story, there is no resolution to the Oscorp storyline involving the serum, etc. Every single bit of that was removed. They completely failed to remove the dozens of references to it in the movie though. Peter gets angry numerous times about his parents leaving and disappearing on him. They attempt to cover that, sloppily, with a brief glimpse of him finding an article about their plane crash, yet he continues to get mad as if they abandoned him, not that they died tragically after only leaving him for a short time. There is no resolution to the Oscorp stooge guy taking the serum to that VA hospital. He gets attacked on the bridge by Lizard, but isn't killed or even hurt, and then he disappears from the film. In the trailers it is evident that he plays a big role further in the movie in revealing the "untold story" to Parker as he is dying. Every drop of that is removed and it just leaves this massive empty space about what the heck happened there. There is no motivation for the Lizard's actions. He simply starts to go nuts, hear voices, and decides to kill people/transform them into Lizards. Essentially it is the same story of the Green Goblin from Spiderman but done worse. Speaking of Lizard people, he magics up these gas grenades from nowhere, apparently having transformed his injected serum into an aerosol dispersant while living in the sewers, using them to make a bunch of cops into Lizards. They then disappear off screen until the antidote is launched out of the conveniently 2-minute countdown timed mortar. There was supposed to be much more involving them which was also cut from the film.

In the end, it is an entertaining movie, but once you start to think about it you realize you saw about half what the movie promised in the trailers and only about 3/4ths of an actual movie thanks to all the horrible edited plot lines. You end up with a Spiderman movie that is better looking than the previous incarnations, has some very good pieces, but in the end feels like an incomplete movie and a total cash grab before Sony lost the rights. Hopefully the sequel is a much better put together movie which in part could have been caused by the completely inexperienced director they handed the franchise to.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

5

Slimshady6Jul 11, 2012

I had very mixed feelings for this film. I read the ultimate spider man comics, and had high expectations for this film to be based more on it. Which is kinda is and kinda isn't. I understand bringing in lizard man to introduce the newI had very mixed feelings for this film. I read the ultimate spider man comics, and had high expectations for this film to be based more on it. Which is kinda is and kinda isn't. I understand bringing in lizard man to introduce the new spider man. But the way they placed big events and brought characters in the movie I dont understand how they are going to make the second one good and especially making this series beat Sam Raimis spider man movies. This movie was ok, But throwing out main events out of the comic books and not following the story of how it should go, its going to end up like Sam Raimi's series. Bringing in Gwen Stacy and Her Father and killing her dad so quickly was a stupid idea. I just wish someone would actually follow a storyline for once.… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

5

dev92Jul 21, 2012

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

btzneb92Aug 12, 2012

I'm sorry, but the reboot just didn't work for me at all. The story was just all over the place, and it moved so slowly. I understand that they were going for a character piece here, but they're focusing too much on every plotline that it'sI'm sorry, but the reboot just didn't work for me at all. The story was just all over the place, and it moved so slowly. I understand that they were going for a character piece here, but they're focusing too much on every plotline that it's just hard to hold on too. Also, I know they're trying to go on a more darker approach to the Spider-Man storyline, but another main reason for Spider-Man's appeal to audiences is the wonder and joy of discovering and using these powers, and it's utterly lacking in this movie. Yes, there's some humor on Peter using the powers for the first time, but it's hardly wonder. And Jesus, the new Spidey costume sucks. Andrew Garfield was pretty good as Peter Parker though. Oh well. Hopefully they learned from their mistakes in time for the second movie in 2014.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

00LiteyearNov 18, 2012

Spiderman at his worst. It was like Twilight trying to become a super hero movie. Gwen Stacy's only importance was that she worked at a top secret laboratory, despite being a high schooler. Her role as a love interest seemed very forcedSpiderman at his worst. It was like Twilight trying to become a super hero movie. Gwen Stacy's only importance was that she worked at a top secret laboratory, despite being a high schooler. Her role as a love interest seemed very forced because she didn't help Spiderman get stronger at all. Heavy emphasis on how cool Uncle Ben is was over done because it took nearly half of the movie for him to die, which shows how much it dragged on for. Aunt May is a withering grandma who only wants eggs, a joke that excuses Peter Parker from telling her anything that goes on in his life. Dr Connors is a desperate in-debt scientist whose role is to be a Spiderman's personal problem because Peter gave him the formula to be a lizard; absolutely no style. And Peter Parker himself, a cool skateboarding high schooler who gets beat up only because he stands up for others; nothing nerdy about it. When he's Spiderman, he seems very weak. Gets shot in the leg and can barely walk; Gets surrounded by a bunch of thugs and runs away. Marc Webb's directing is very straightforward, which is good for his other movies, but not for this first action movie. Viewers should take note that most of Spiderman is viewed in the dark, perhaps for Webb to push a darker theme for Spiderman. However, Spiderman isn't Batman, and Spiderman's Personal/Hero life really isn't as complicated. Raimi, please come back.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

SeriosityJul 26, 2013

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

Skullgirlsfan13May 28, 2013

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

mijxeroAug 11, 2013

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

ThatCooperGuyJun 25, 2015

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

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

5

garasaki619Nov 15, 2013

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

supermann234Dec 7, 2014

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

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

Meth-dudeAug 16, 2014

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

TheDude-Jul 18, 2015

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

Jefferygamer200Oct 13, 2015

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

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

ReelViews94Mar 23, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

CinemaphileJul 29, 2016

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

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

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

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

bimmybob2001Aug 3, 2018

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

BrunoVn00Mar 31, 2019

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

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

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

Freddie2004Jul 22, 2019

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

ShkvyapotapokJun 19, 2020

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

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

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

DCosloff1999Jan 24, 2021

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

ChanekeCholoDec 13, 2021

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

BlueMoonJul 26, 2012

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

PPPETERJul 8, 2012

this movie was really slow for the first hour and then it got better andrew garfield has to be the worst actor i have ever seen play spider man he acts like he is on drugs half the time

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

4

FreezyBabyJul 4, 2012

I don't care about the reboot. This is just a tremendously mediocre movie. Incredibly poor pacing and a weak script. Shame, because all the actors are game and most of the CGI is well-done. The second half of the movie descends into theI don't care about the reboot. This is just a tremendously mediocre movie. Incredibly poor pacing and a weak script. Shame, because all the actors are game and most of the CGI is well-done. The second half of the movie descends into the ridiculous, the characters other than Peter Parker are written so lifeless and one-note. I thought there was plenty enough to distinguish this from the last franchise, but I think it's very fair to compare them if you give this one a fair shake standing on its own. This movie, however, does not stand well on its own, Ironically, this one apparently stayed more true to several of the details of the comics but lacks any of the energy and wonder of a comic book. The first movie of the last series had this is spades. Just a really disappointing effort, and the first recent Marvel movie I disliked more than I liked.… Expand

6 of 19 users found this helpful613

All this user's reviews

4

ArgoLolJul 18, 2012

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

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

MeltedFab5Jul 4, 2012

Tone is all wrong. Awkward only plays effectively until the awkward situation is resolved. This movie is as awkward as the main characters who never grow out of it. This movie has no sense of fun and no sense of Spider-Man or Peter Parker.Tone is all wrong. Awkward only plays effectively until the awkward situation is resolved. This movie is as awkward as the main characters who never grow out of it. This movie has no sense of fun and no sense of Spider-Man or Peter Parker. Keep asking yourself...what does this kid want...and see if you find an answer. The movie was actually boring and the most satisfying moment was watching the credits role. Even the after-credits teaser was lame. Really??… Expand

1 of 5 users found this helpful14

All this user's reviews

4

ns0lAug 21, 2013

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

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

4

MattyiceJul 28, 2012

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

RealMuthaFJul 7, 2012

I must say I'm disappointed. I've read a review, on one site I usually have similar opinions with, promising that it'll be an entirely different perspective on the spider man, new and refreshing, and had quite high hopes for this movie.I must say I'm disappointed. I've read a review, on one site I usually have similar opinions with, promising that it'll be an entirely different perspective on the spider man, new and refreshing, and had quite high hopes for this movie. However, it's nothing new at all, same story about becoming a hero, with all its melodramatic boring moments about dying family and so on. What's worse, the action is scarce and not especially entertaining. What I did like were those short 1st-person view moments, which were quite breathtaking. All in all, it's a mediocre superhero movie, which I wouldn't be afraid to miss.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

4

ObeyingSlaveJul 6, 2012

What a complete disappointment. I wasn't really sure what to expect going in to the move, but it was decent at best. The graphics are really the only reason this deserves any high score. The story was so generic. It seems like his uncle dyingWhat a complete disappointment. I wasn't really sure what to expect going in to the move, but it was decent at best. The graphics are really the only reason this deserves any high score. The story was so generic. It seems like his uncle dying had no effect on him what so ever. He was very **** and went right into attacks. He was not tactical at all. It felt so incredibly rushed. The story moves so quickly. He just gets the suit. It's like he pulled it out of his ass or something. This was a complete let down. The story is so generic and one-dimensional. I don't even know why they had him like cameras. They tried to make him some cool kid. He used the camera like one time and didn't use it any other time. The comedy was the only thing appealing. The fight scenes were very generic and predictable. He's a lazy, disrespectful, over-confident, teenager who happens to get abilities to climb on walls. It is also stupid how he has those little machines pushing out webs. It makes him so much more vulnerable. All you have to do is aim for those and he's as good as dead. Would not watch again.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

4

buckeyeboi33Jul 18, 2012

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

nilerafter24Oct 27, 2012

Absolutely horrible. Riddled with nauseating cliches from beginning to end. This may be the worst and most unnecessary reboot ever. There is absolutely no originality in the plot. Even the soundtrack is ridiculously annoying. I'd have thoughtAbsolutely horrible. Riddled with nauseating cliches from beginning to end. This may be the worst and most unnecessary reboot ever. There is absolutely no originality in the plot. Even the soundtrack is ridiculously annoying. I'd have thought these directors could learn from the Nolans and the Snyders on how to make good superhero movies. The only high point in this movie is Emma Stone's solid acting. Garfield tries and his moments too, I'll give him that. The CGI is absolutely horrendous. It's like they're using software from 1999. Dr. Lizard has got to be the most un-terrifying bad guy ever. The 3D gimmicks are off-point and cheesy. Really, I have no idea how this movie got into production in the first place. Biggest letdown of the year.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

pyxisDec 28, 2012

No, I didn't think a reboot was warranted, and nothing in the previews urged me otherwise. That said, I thought for sure they'd do a great job with it, with the track record of hero-based reboots being taken seriously and respected in theNo, I didn't think a reboot was warranted, and nothing in the previews urged me otherwise. That said, I thought for sure they'd do a great job with it, with the track record of hero-based reboots being taken seriously and respected in the last decade. I expected to at the very least be entertained. If you can read between the lines of the above, you can understand where I'm coming from when I say I am completely dumbfounded by the consistent amount of praise I see for this adaptation. Aside from looking more sterile and overly-indulging in video game caliber CG in places where it wasn't even necessary, making films from over a decade ago look modest in their graphics work, there were nothing but issues for me. From the set designs that actually didn't require green screens to the casting, I am left scratching my head because usually when I get online to complain there are 10 other people touching upon the bases I have been running in my head. A lot of reviews praise the additional back story. If by additional back story, you mean cliche scenes of going against the grain in high school complete with jock bullies, and locker drama seen in countless other 'teen angst overcame' movies, okay...you got it. They may have spent more time in his school and very non-Parker-esque like household, but that doesn't mean the extra time spent was actually "building" on anything. It wasn't even just the CG that was over polished and sterile, but even the story lines, and even the big build up scenes. Dennis Leary seemed to be completely playing up what must've been countless people's comments telling him that he reminded them of Aaron Eckhart in Harvey Dent's shoes, and the very hard to get wrong cliches got as thin as it gets when playing up the "rich girl brings rough-around-the-edges" kid to an extreme needlessly "formal" dinner at the Stacy residence. It was a series of scenes I spent wondering if Leary was embarrassed to be rattling off the script he was given for this, as surely the fans and rest of the internet would be tearing this thing to shreds. Silly me... or have I just gone mad? An honest wonder.

The sewer drama unfolded like the audience had the brain capacity of a 7 year old, having to blatantly have a smart kid like Parker being so thoughtless as to rig up his camera so carefully to snap the lizard's photo, then zooming right in on the back of the camera to the "property of Peter Parker" label on the back that looked like it's only purpose being stuck there was for this scene specifically, covering most of the bottom of the item, then the movie pans right up to this, spoonfeeding us this "clue" in case we missed it. There is little to no attention to detail even on such a pivitol scene (like the rest of the film) to even make the label look worn...like "oops, forgot that was even on there". Nothing subtle here...and yes, subtly does work even for a comic book movie. Other tidbits that left me biting my tongue include the scene of the spider crawling out of the bite wound, and the fact that they got away with banking on the praise they'd receive for one aspect, namely "being truer to the original, and truer to reality" by incorporating the synthetic web shooter vs. the spider's venom itself passing on web-spinning capabilities as in some variations of these stories. The rest of the movie negates this cry for credibility in every way -- nothing felt natural. I guess I've been spoiled -- most movies I sit through are concerned with all of these things so my mind doesn't even have to wander to consider picking apart things like that. Much like an ex wife who lost a divorce who is defending her meltdown, "I've grown accustomed to a certain lifestyle!" In all honesty I expected this to be good, because they had so many skeptical eyes on them for such and early reboot and a legacy to uphold or outdo, and since that has actually been achieved by others more often than before, Marvel and Co. surely would only back something that would do it justice. In that light, this 4am squinty-eyed review is one I was not expecting to write, and I would've guessed I'd be more likely to write something like this for a movie like 'Chronicle', which I enjoyed much more than I thought I would. The Amazing Spider Man turned out to be quite the table turner for me.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

JohnLemonJan 20, 2013

This movie is awful and i gave it 4 out of 10 just because there are some things on which i can't close my eyes and got to admit, that they're done well. But there's some many wrong choices, especially in plot. I don't want to tell like everyThis movie is awful and i gave it 4 out of 10 just because there are some things on which i can't close my eyes and got to admit, that they're done well. But there's some many wrong choices, especially in plot. I don't want to tell like every mistake, but most irritating for me was the fact, that this movie didn't bring main topic of Spider-man's existing, this movie never told us, that: with great power, comes great responsibility. In this movie this phrase never appears, and if authors wants to tell us about that in later movies, it's a big mistake, because then this movie looks even worse and cannot live on itself, only as a part of a trilogy, and i hate that tendency. This movie creates some interesting topics and never gives us answers, just to carry for other movies. This movie must be a self-contained story, but story is not only problem. I don't like this much "edgier, dark and realistic" atmosphere. I don't like this Parker with his tight jeans and skateboard. They wanted to tell us THE OTHER STORY THAT ISN'T REALLY REVEALED but instead it's the same story and not even finished. Effects and Ema Stone only saves this movie for me.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

TheDeakinApr 11, 2013

I was a big fan of the original Spider-man trilogy (yes even Spider-man 3), and i was being optimistic in hoping that this film would introduce a new darker quality to the character and the retelling of the origin, but overall i found theI was a big fan of the original Spider-man trilogy (yes even Spider-man 3), and i was being optimistic in hoping that this film would introduce a new darker quality to the character and the retelling of the origin, but overall i found the film to be underwhelming, unoriginal and in some parts, just plain stupid. Firstly i must point out that Andrew Garfield did a great job of portraying Peter Parker, as did Emma stone of Gwen Stacy, and they have good chemistry, but the script is not particularly thoughtful nor engaging, just classic cheeky rom-com stuff, but i guess there's nothing wrong with that, and the romance between the two is what makes this film a hit with the ladies. The Lizard on the other hand, played by Rhys Ifans, is a complete Ra's al Ghul rip off from Liam Neeson in Batman Begins, speaking in a slow wise voice and his plan to evolve the human race into raging lizards, for the benefit of the future of the planet or some crap. Much like Ra's extreme views of wiping out corruption for the the same reason. Much of the story is the same, dont be fooled, apart from the back story to peter's parents, its much like the original Spider-man of 2002. The special effects were pretty impressive but that basically meant the action sequences were hectic and cartoonish, which i guess is to capture the comic book style, but overall are boring. There are no cleverly planned out set pieces or twists in the plot, the final fight is on top of a skyscraper at night and another confrontation takes place on a bridge at night, very imaginative. This film is well made and the acting is pretty solid, and i can understand why newcomers to spiderman are loving it, but if you are familiar with Sam Raimi's trilogy and have watched a fair few superhero films like myself, you are likely to be disappointed with this film. Hopefully the sequel can find its own groove.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

JmsbppJul 15, 2013

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

SkyScreamer57Nov 29, 2013

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

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

joao1198pedroMay 5, 2014

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

homer4presidentMar 13, 2015

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

Mar3148VMar 14, 2021

Ludicrous. What a waste of amazing talent.

Except Tony Perkins Junior as the Human Spider.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

DerekReideApr 7, 2019

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

rubinowabrukiewAug 20, 2019

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

Onlyclassicvg1Dec 30, 2020

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

4

Sarian263Mar 15, 2021

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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

agagilNov 23, 2012

A bit on the weak side I'm afraid. The movie doesn't seem to rise up from being a silly teenager flick, nerdy boy meets hot girl and then proceeds to tell her he's Spiderman. That's about it.

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

3

MonopolyBagJul 5, 2012

I watched it, and didn't think highly of it thinking back. It felt forced. As if they were trying to follow the story and at the same time give a new perspective on everything from what most of us know of the first Spiderman a few years back.I watched it, and didn't think highly of it thinking back. It felt forced. As if they were trying to follow the story and at the same time give a new perspective on everything from what most of us know of the first Spiderman a few years back. The actors and actresses used didn't always fit the parts, just didn't feel smooth enough. The movie never sucked me into it as most shows and movies are suppose to do and most good ones do do to me. I am glad I got to see this movie at no cost.… Expand

4 of 12 users found this helpful48

All this user's reviews

3

ArtomozNov 21, 2012

You're going to love this movie if you're new to Spiderman and the history behind this character. If you're an old Spiderman fan, you either loved it because you love Spiderman so much or hated the movie because it did not exactly portray theYou're going to love this movie if you're new to Spiderman and the history behind this character. If you're an old Spiderman fan, you either loved it because you love Spiderman so much or hated the movie because it did not exactly portray the origins of Spiderman and his powers, except for Uncle Bens death. For an 2 hour film it seems the movie spend most of the time showing how a guy went from being the hipster d-bag at starbucks to the hipster d-bag holding a starbucks cup with super powers trying to do a kick flip in an abandon garage. Compared to the Dark Knight: Rises and the Avengers, this super hero movie is a super zero movie. I can't pathom how hard I tried to keep this movie from boring me to tears with scenes only suitable for teenagers who are going through puberty and can get off with such bland story line.… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

3

neowiz73Oct 4, 2012

Sally Fields as aunt may just doesn't seem right... she is a great actress. but as Aunt may, I just don't see it. This movie was too drawn out and unnecessary really, I really enjoyed Tobey Maguire as spidey more-so. Not sure what to makeSally Fields as aunt may just doesn't seem right... she is a great actress. but as Aunt may, I just don't see it. This movie was too drawn out and unnecessary really, I really enjoyed Tobey Maguire as spidey more-so. Not sure what to make of the suit in this movie either... Although the premise of having Gwen Stacy as his first girl friend went along with the comic book series. I wished we could all just agree to forget about spider-man 3 and just let Sam Raimi remake it. but this time keep venom out of it until much later on. But I would say this one is just as bad as Spider-man 3, but on the other side of the spectrum. Where Spider-man 3 tried to bite off more than Sam Raimi could chew in a single length movie. This one is the utter lack there of.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

3

ipatrick69Jul 17, 2012

if you never saw the original movies then it might be worth seeing for some mild entertainment but in general it is a very dumb, unbelievable and badly written movie. there was no reason that i can see for this remake. the first movies wereif you never saw the original movies then it might be worth seeing for some mild entertainment but in general it is a very dumb, unbelievable and badly written movie. there was no reason that i can see for this remake. the first movies were superior in every way.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

3

Spid77Jul 3, 2012

Wow. It's pretty bad. It barley held my interest. I found myself at times wishing it was over. The kid that plays spiderman has one of those faces you just want to punch...like Jamie Oliver. The tree points I gave it went to the cgi which wasWow. It's pretty bad. It barley held my interest. I found myself at times wishing it was over. The kid that plays spiderman has one of those faces you just want to punch...like Jamie Oliver. The tree points I gave it went to the cgi which was really good. The subplot about his parents it totally unnecessary, but maybe they have something big planned. Reminded me of a direct to dvd spiderman movie.… Expand

7 of 35 users found this helpful728

All this user's reviews

3

sanluOct 6, 2012

no se si alguien me pueda entender pero en cierto caso "use the traslator if you want" , yo personalmente pienso que la actuacion andrew garfield, emma stone, y martin sheen fue buena, los efecto fueron buenos, y la forma de dirigir de webbno se si alguien me pueda entender pero en cierto caso "use the traslator if you want" , yo personalmente pienso que la actuacion andrew garfield, emma stone, y martin sheen fue buena, los efecto fueron buenos, y la forma de dirigir de webb es muy interesante, pero la historia de la pelicula es muy mala, en los primeros 15 minutos peter "investiga" acerca de sus padres y despues deja de hacerlo. cuando el tio ben de peter muere, peter se dedica a hacer una busqueda como si fuera krave el cazador en encontrar al asesino de su tio, y despues deja de hacerlo para buscar al lagarto que al final termina encarcelado, mala la idea. el romance fue bien al principio pero despues se hizo muy rapido, como si los escritores pensaran: vamos hacer que peter bese a la chica, le revele su identidad y que al final de la pelicula rompa con ella para que 5 minutos despues regresen a ser novios!!! no me gusto mucho que peer fuera un chico con capulla que practica skate y con un peinado al de edwar cullen, que gwen fuera fria al final, lo digo porque cuando muere su padre no se le ve triste, pero cuanto termina con peter termina llorando, el lagarto fue una basura, un hombre lagarto gigante desnudo con una cara de simio, que tenia el plan de convertir la gente en lagartos, pero que ni siquiera logra durar mas de medio dia en su estado de lagarto, ¿y que paso con la familia de connors? ¿porque flash thompson no fastidia tanto a peter como en los comics? ¿porque gwen es una chica ricachona con una familia completa? ¿porque el capitan stacey le quita la dinamica de j jameson?… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

rottentomatoJul 5, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The main problem with this film is that it is to the Spiderman legacy what Superman Returns was to the Superman legacy: Pleasantly executed but completely pointless. The trailers would have you believe this film focuses on the 'untold story' of Peter Parker's background, but aside from the fact the Parker's dad was a scientist and they died in a suspicious car crash, this aspect of the film is completely wasted because it's never explored fully. You're left with the impression Parker's untold story was just a rouse to get people to come and see the film, and you can almost feel Webb's eagerness to get this out of the way so he can concentrate on the business at hand: remaking Rami's first film. So Uncle Ben gets bumped off by some unknown petty criminal again, this gives rise to Peter's sense of responsibility again (though the emotional transition is not as believable as in the Rami's movie), Peter gets his powers from a genetically modified spider again (this time just in a different location) and Peter decides he can't fulfill his love interest because of his new gig as Spiderman...again. Yes, there's mechanical web-shooters instead of biological ones, and this Peter is slightly more cool than Toby Maguire's, and we have Gwen Stacy instead of MJ. But that's about it, those are the differences you're paying your money for!

The relationship between Garfield and Stone however does work very well; the pair have a more natural chemistry than Maguire and Dunst and that translates effortlessly, though both are far too wise and articulate to be believable as high school students.

I know some fans like the predictability element of superhero films, but I just wish that this film would have been braver. Nolan's Batman Begins, for example, was a true origin story, offering the audience something new. This film takes no risks and as such do not be under the impression this is an origin story - it's the same film as the 2002 original but with a much less engrossing villain (even the split personality/voices in the head is copied from Rami's Goblin here) If you care about Spidey, you'll end up feeling slightly ripped off by the whole thing.… Expand

2 of 8 users found this helpful26

All this user's reviews

3

DeafheavenJul 8, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Just because it is a super-hero movie does not mean it cannot be smart and this movie is not smart. I can buy that someone can get bit by a radioactive spider and get super powers because, hey, that's the suspension of belief needed for the genre. If you are not going to go along with that then best to ignore fantasy type movies all together. What I can't by is a high security building with equipment dangerous enough to gas an entire city, can allow someone in just because they have a name tag (and throw someone out because they do not). I also cannot buy that you could just wander around as you please in such a place. And most of all, I do not buy that a teenage intern can access this place whenever they please and create an antidote for a mutant virus that only just appeared, in a matter of 8 minutes. I guess she stayed at a Holiday Inn. Dumb!… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

3

BallisticBBQJul 10, 2012

This movie compared to the first Spider-man is **** you don't even have to see it, its a waste of money, Toby Maguir made a better Spider-man, The Amazing Spider-man is in my opinion the worst marvel movie yet

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

3

FinJul 13, 2012

You want to waste 2 hours of your life, then watch this movie.This movie is so boring, there is almost no action into it. The development of Parker is damn weak. You should watch this movie only if you're a teen, because there's no essence inYou want to waste 2 hours of your life, then watch this movie.This movie is so boring, there is almost no action into it. The development of Parker is damn weak. You should watch this movie only if you're a teen, because there's no essence in it. This movie is way worse than the Spider-Man movie of 2002, not saying that one was a good one but it was watchable.

Simply put, don't watch it and you'll do something more constructing with your time… Expand

6 of 19 users found this helpful613

All this user's reviews

3

PlaycanonJul 15, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I saw a lot terrible mistakes in the film esp in the last part when lizard placed his hand that was holding spider man leg on his face,terrible mistakes and acting was extremely poor.... Fun to watch but terrible things and a spider that can't cast webs on his own is just bad.. really really bad...spider is stronger than lizard and he can't beat it...just bad… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

3

glemonJul 30, 2012

I am really not "getting" all the positive reviews this movie is getting, seems very formulaic to me, was too long by quite a bit. Spidy didn't seem nerdy enough to me as Peter Parker. I thought the whole becoming spiderman sequence fromI am really not "getting" all the positive reviews this movie is getting, seems very formulaic to me, was too long by quite a bit. Spidy didn't seem nerdy enough to me as Peter Parker. I thought the whole becoming spiderman sequence from bite to finish was better in the first film. I thought Spideys spinning and swinging and Spiderman stuff was better in Spidey one. There was little if anything to recommend this over the first film, character development, villain, action all seemed to be worse to me.

I am not one who says the movie has to be a slave to the original comic, but other than Gwen Stacy v. MJ as the original girlfreind the first movie seemed to follow the early comics better, and it did it so well that where the 2nd strayed it bugged me. The new one also seemed like a 60s ish story with a 20xx vibe rather than the nostalgic consistency of the first one.

Wasn't expcting all that much, was still disappointed.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

3

RikiegeSep 23, 2012

The worst movie and marvel that ever seen! This film does nothing more than fill scenes without inportancia (leftover). The biggest star of the movie is boredom.

6 of 13 users found this helpful67

All this user's reviews

3

PuciferNov 16, 2013

More like the "The Amazing Computer-Generated Imagery Man!" This is a none-too-original origins story trite teenage romance hybrid in which dumb coincidences abound and the level of ridiculousness (e.g., a secret laboratory in the cityMore like the "The Amazing Computer-Generated Imagery Man!" This is a none-too-original origins story trite teenage romance hybrid in which dumb coincidences abound and the level of ridiculousness (e.g., a secret laboratory in the city sewers) grows increasingly tiresome. I won't say it's spectacular, but it is a spectacle of sorts all right, and I'd say skip it if only to dissuade them from making any more sequels.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

3

Salsand3rNov 24, 2014

Peter Parker isn't a nerd, but a handsome hipster only labeled a nerd so he can be the misunderstood boy in girls' middle school fantasies. Am I watching High School Marvelous or a comic book adaptation? The 2002 version is much better.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

WymasterAug 18, 2013

Ok, I will say that the Amazing Spider-Man had some decent visuals, and a really great performance from Andrew Garfield. He was absolutely hilarious as Spider Man. Emma Stone was decent enough as Gwen Stacy. My biggest problem with the filmOk, I will say that the Amazing Spider-Man had some decent visuals, and a really great performance from Andrew Garfield. He was absolutely hilarious as Spider Man. Emma Stone was decent enough as Gwen Stacy. My biggest problem with the film is that just 10 years after the first Spider Man film was released, this is just a rehash of everything that happened. Not only that, but it was done worse than the original Spider Man. It felt rushed, like they were trying to cram a lot of stuff into a short window of time. It felt like they were competing with the first Spider Man, and they lost on almost every front. I didn't feel much of a connection to the villain, either. He was simply there, and for what reason? A good hero makes half of a good story, a good villain completes it. We are left with half of a good story, which isn't enough to keep this movie above water. It kept me entertained enough for the time I watched it, but afterwards, it simply left me disappointed and frustrated. One of the worst movies of 2012.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

3

JP32Nov 3, 2017

There is a fundamental problem with The Amazing Spider-Man. The handling of Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker is all wrong. There is something non-negotiable about the character of Peter Parker, something essential to his personality. He has toThere is a fundamental problem with The Amazing Spider-Man. The handling of Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker is all wrong. There is something non-negotiable about the character of Peter Parker, something essential to his personality. He has to be uncool. Tobey Maguire brought to the role a sweet, boyish naiveté. Garfield's version is a sulky male-model.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

Deanfm123456789Mar 3, 2019

After 3 Big Successes of Superhero Films, We get a Reboot of a good Franchise, This Franchise Obviously was a Huge Step down for the original Trilogy, which was even better than this **** franchise, There nothing even good about it besidesAfter 3 Big Successes of Superhero Films, We get a Reboot of a good Franchise, This Franchise Obviously was a Huge Step down for the original Trilogy, which was even better than this **** franchise, There nothing even good about it besides the swinging scenes, So this will obviously be the 2nd worst Spider-Man Movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

Rickniks38May 8, 2022

Don't like the film the story and writing are super hit or miss everything else though is good Andrew Garfield plays Spider-Man well and I like the romance between him and Gwen.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

bigfoot6463Jul 3, 2012

I dont even know where to start. The acting was very poor and this is just a reboot, It had no comparison to the previous Spider Man movies. The originals were the best. This new cast never gives you any feeling for the good or the badI dont even know where to start. The acting was very poor and this is just a reboot, It had no comparison to the previous Spider Man movies. The originals were the best. This new cast never gives you any feeling for the good or the bad people. Had SI FI which I dont like for the most part but it just didnt fit in with this movie, which is like watching a B rated movie. Maybe it is, any way..............The actors look like they are reading off of Q cards. You dont get the sense of feeling towards themselves that people get when they are in love with there partner. Advice: wait till it comes out on tv or a Premium movie Chanel you may have. Don't waste you money.There are so many things wrong with this movie im just going to stop.… Expand

6 of 37 users found this helpful631

All this user's reviews

2

EverlongJul 8, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Perhaps it's because it was only 5 years ago that the last Spiderman film was released but this movie just felt... unnecessary. i didn't feel that there was anything that stood out from Spiderman (2002.) Sure, we had cosmetic differences, but the biggest difference, the mysterious circumstances surrounding Peter's parents' deaths, just felt dull. I couldn't connect with Peter Parker - he was just an arrogant, spoilt ass and I had a hard time feeling sorry for him. The villain was just plain BORING ; an evil lizard bent on infecting a city - really? No thank you. Writing this review just made me further depressed so I just warn you that this Spiderman film really adds little to the original film produced in 2002.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

2

antony123Aug 25, 2012

This is not spiderman..... a very bad and boring movie
The previous was not good but far away better than this one. Hopefully it will end here and no trilogy come out

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

2

TheAddictOct 1, 2012

Worst Spiderman movie. Ever. End of story.
Whoever wrote this movie's plot (I don't even want to know his name) should be ashamed. I can only feel disappointed in all the people that actually went to see the movie. It's just so terrible.Worst Spiderman movie. Ever. End of story.
Whoever wrote this movie's plot (I don't even want to know his name) should be ashamed. I can only feel disappointed in all the people that actually went to see the movie. It's just so terrible. Almost nothing new or relevant is revealed. I'm surprised nobody sued these people. The acting is a bit childish, and the cheesy romance played by Andrew and Emma is like a new version of Twilight, and I think I speak in name of all people when I say we don't want another Twilight. If you haven't seen this movie so far, then you've done good.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

SwedishReviewAug 12, 2013

One of the most over rated movie ever this had me sleeping
this earns a highest of 2/10
A very bad movie
............................................

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

2

ReggytheWiseApr 26, 2021

whoever reviewed this higher then ant man, x-men, or spider-man 3 were either drunk or high because I don't remember the comic where peter was a thief like in this waste of time

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

PlatinumTrophyAug 29, 2022

This is like a made for kids made for TV movie. Nothing like the OG Spider-Man with Tobey Maguire. Got it for $5.99. Still not worth it at that price. A very unlikeable actor playing as Spider-Man. And Emma Stone is nothing to write homeThis is like a made for kids made for TV movie. Nothing like the OG Spider-Man with Tobey Maguire. Got it for $5.99. Still not worth it at that price. A very unlikeable actor playing as Spider-Man. And Emma Stone is nothing to write home about either. Terrible movie not even worth a rental. We didn't even want to finish it. There was only one scene that was slightly watchable where "Spider-Man" was in the car about to be stolen. 1 scene out of the entire movie. They should never hire this actor again.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

AkadrudFeb 12, 2014

This movie just sucks. How do you even think about remaking a movie about spiderman? Another one was realeased not many years ago and it was quite good. This one instead it's just spiderman for kids, the story is all messed up, the mainThis movie just sucks. How do you even think about remaking a movie about spiderman? Another one was realeased not many years ago and it was quite good. This one instead it's just spiderman for kids, the story is all messed up, the main character looks like a boy band member to catch some young teenager public (cmon peter parker should look and be just like a nerd, not a bieber/breaking dawn/skater/genius/rebel boy). Oh please it's just so bad..… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

1

MB_Jul 21, 2012

Whatever you do do not take your kids to watch this film. They will resent you for weeks to come, it's just so damned boring. They will scream at you and moan at you as they watch it and hate you when you come out. Now if you're a grown upWhatever you do do not take your kids to watch this film. They will resent you for weeks to come, it's just so damned boring. They will scream at you and moan at you as they watch it and hate you when you come out. Now if you're a grown up don't bother either, shallow, predictable and just plain boring. You have been warned.… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

1

mwakJul 23, 2012

If you like the marvel universe and the comics, you will really loose faith in humanity.
This is more a teenager movie than a spiderman movie. Spidey looks like an unsure crying teenager who may have look too many twiligh movies. In fact itIf you like the marvel universe and the comics, you will really loose faith in humanity.
This is more a teenager movie than a spiderman movie. Spidey looks like an unsure crying teenager who may have look too many twiligh movies. In fact it could have been any "superhero" in this movie. The actor role is not good at all except for peter's girl friend. The Artistic direction seems to have gone out of budget and imagination and 3D effect are very unequal. The filming technics are poor, it's a pain to wash like some over used and missplaced focus effect. Even Spiderman 3 that was really bad, was above this in term of realisation. The final cut could have been amputed of 30 minutes to add some dynamic to the movie, some scenes are really long for nothing.
By reference to the comics, the main character should be quick and intelligent, and this spidey is nothing of that, somtimes his reactions are so ridculous, you just want to slap him, put him in his costume and tell "so now what ? amaze me ... amazing spiderman" ... and certainly he would just cry.
So in fact it's more a love/teen movie than a super hero movie, they could have replaced spidey be any hero/emo guy it whould have been the same. In term of character respect it's one of the worst marvel movie.… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

1

PRADYJul 4, 2012

This film was boring, drab and there was no real adventure. The first half sucked. Nothing to write abt villain. A superhero movie needs an equally strong and emphatic villain. This movie lacked that.

8 of 27 users found this helpful819

All this user's reviews

1

PahnMar 3, 2013

I just don't get it. The Spider Man trilogy started in 2002, and now we already have a reboot? Man, can't wait until this superhero fad dies off and never comes back.

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

The Amazing Spider-Man

User Reviews