The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) User Reviews

The Spider-man Film That The Comic Fans Will Love But Sam Raimi Fans Will Hate

[AmbushBug26 · 8/10 · 15 July 2012]

Being a Spider-man comic book fan I can say that a lot of the stuff that happens in this story is true to the comic book Spider-man. Spider-man has web shooters, Spider-man likes to joke a lot, Gwen Stacy was Spider-man's first love, etc. So Anyone who is a fan of the comics will respect this movie on that merit, the merit that it was faithful to the source material while bringing in new stuff without losing what made Spider-man who he is.

People who've only seen the Spider-man films and never bothered to read any of the comics. Won't like this film as much. They'll say the same old stuff. "Why was this made? We've seen this already?" Blah blah blah.

Let me go off saying that behind Spider-man 2, this is probably the best of the Spider-man trilogy for one reason.....it avoids all clichés that the original trilogy didn't. In fact the film pretty much avoids all clichés at all. I'll try and explain a few without spoiling the film.

Well first of all the woman in this film aren't morons. One of the main problems I had with Sam Raimi's films was the fact that all woman were pretty much portrayed as objects that Spider-man can save. None of them do anything helpful. Sure Mary Jane tried to hit Doctor Octopus with a plank in the second film, but she couldn't even do that right. That's not the case here. Gwen actually has a confrontation with with villain and she doesn't screw around, I won't say what she does but when I saw it happen I couldn't help but cheer. Finally a Spider-man film where the woman have a brain-stem.

The second cliché it avoids is being predictable. The original films basically have Spider-man going through the motions. Girl gets kidnapped, Spidey saves girl, Spidey defeats villain or jumps out of the way so the villain can do harm to himself. That is not the case with this film, a lot of the time you think one thing is going to happen but then it doesn't and the opposite happens.

The third cliché it avoids is having silly moments. The first trilogy had a lot of them, yes even Spider-man 2 (The raindrops keep falling on my head scene). Going back an having re-watched the Sam Raimi trilogy before seeing this one, the films are more like popcorn films. Sam Raimi is the master at making B movies and that's what the original trilogy was, an epic scale B Movie. With this film, they get a little more serious. There's not really any goofy moments that I can think of and if there are then it's usually played for laughs.

Also THANK GOD They got Flash Thompson right. Sam Raimi used Flash so he could be the stereotypical bully, and at the beginning you think that's what Marc Webb plans to do, but then he shows that Flash isn't as big a douche as he makes himself out to be. Flash is one of my favourite Spider-man characters in the comics, and I'd like to say "thank you Marc Webb for avoiding the cliché of him just being a bully and actually making him a human being with depth." The film also does other things right besides avoiding clichés. The actors all do fantastic jobs and I will go on record saying that Andrew Garfield is the perfect Spider-man and a great role model for young boys even though he has his flaws. Martin Sheen was great as an Uncle Ben who is kind, understanding, but at the same time doesn't take any crap. Emma Stone was great as the kind of jokey but intelligent Gwen Stacy who is a strong positive role model for young woman. The Guy who played the villain was great, The girl who played Aunt May was good in the few scenes she was in. Not a weak link in the bunch.

So I've done nothing but praise this film so far, so why is it still behind Spider-man 2 in my books? Well the film does have flaw, mainly two. One it's rushed, the only one who really pays for it being rushed is the villain who only gets one line of dialogue to explain his motives and even then we're not sure why he's doing that. The second flaw is that it doesn't have this big epic feel that Spider-man 2 had, it doesn't feel like it was made to be a big summer blockbuster, instead it was made to be an Indy film with a big budget....although maybe that's why I liked it so much, it focuses more on characters than action.....hurm.....I'm still on the fence with that last one.

The Amazing Spider-man is a good film. It avoids most if not all clichés, it's fresh, it's interesting, it's got characters you love to see and actually feel for played by fantastic actors, it's a great Spider-man film and it's sad that a lot of fans seem to be hating it right now. I honestly can't see what's to hate.

Good film, go see it.....oh by the way.....I wouldn't recommend seeing it in 3D, there are a few moments where you're like "Whoa cool" but not much.

The Amazing Spiderman is amazing.

[ryokan_wc · 8/10 · 13 July 2012]

When i first saw the trailer of this movie last year, i thought- another Spiderman movie?, and again earlier this year- seriously, another Spiderman move?. In all honesty, i was not compelled to watch the movie- may be it was the trailer or that thought of how far can a Spiderman movie be different than the one produced about a decade ago? How 'amazing' can it be, as its title suggests?

After going against the odds, i came out from the movie very pleased. In fact, i enjoyed the move thoroughly and felt very entertained. And i finally understood the word 'amazing' in the title- because it is really, pretty amazing!

It is not one of those movies with excessive ZOMG factor, for sure. The movie is amazingly captured with great use of CGI. The first half of the movie explores the dark side of Peter Parker's family history in a fairly comical manner. I got to know about Peter's father, which was not much explained in the previous trilogy and i don't exactly read the comics.Then there is his high school stories of his love. The next half of the movie was gripping and fast-paced, with well angled shots to make you feel like swinging from building to building and climbing up towers- i watched it in 2D and i could still feel the height! This part of the movie focuses on the transformation of Dr Connors as the Lizard, the villain of this movie, who happens to be Peter's father's working partner. His wish to regenerate his arm goes awry, leading him to produce a biological threat that forces Spiderman to a race to save the people in the city.

As i said, i was entertained. The movie was light hearted, like watching The Captain America, with brilliant cast. Andrew G performs magnificently as Peter Parker, to a certain extent, i felt him outshine Tobey M. He fits the character well. I enjoyed the scene where he first discovers of his special ability, particularly with the flipping of his skateboard. Much credits to Emma Stone, Sally Field, Martin Sheen and Rhys I, and director Marc Webb for taking the risk of rebooting this franchise. Watch out for Stan Lee in a show-stopper scene. Flash, played by Chris, gives me the feeling of a sequel where he will be featured in a bigger role- like Jacob in Twilight.

Give this Spiderman a try. For a two-hour movie, this movie does not fall short and does not feel long. And a sequel is pretty likely- stay for the post-credit (duh! almost all Marvel movies has this).

I have to say this one more time: The Amazing Spiderman is amazing.

Nothing special really

[amalank · 7/10 · 7 July 2012]

The Amazing Spider-Man is supposed to be a reboot of the Spider-Man movie franchise. Tobey Maguire is replaced by Andrew Garfield in the protagonist role of Peter Parker. His main love interest switches from Mary-Jane Watson to Gwen Stacy, and the villain in this installment is Dr Curt Connors aka Lizard. As expected, this reboot goes back to the beginning when Peter Parker becomes Spider-Man only it is told in a rather different way to the 2002 movie. This time they also try to add a bit more character oriented storyline.

Is it a good movie? Yes, particularly since I saw this movie in IMAX. This made the action scenes more exciting to watch. It also uses a villain that hasn't been used in the previous movies so at least it does make it different from the previous movies.

Is it a successful reboot of the franchise? In my opinion, not really. It's been five years since the last Spider-Man movie came out, and ten years since the movie franchise was first introduced. Even when they made the announcement of this movie being made, I was questioning it because it's just too soon to make a reboot. For the same reason, this reboot is not refreshing. Without trying to give anything away, you can recognise that this movie takes some of the elements from the 2002 movie. The character oriented storyline doesn't add that much meat to the character of Peter Parker as its supposed to. Its easier to count this as another installment only with different actors playing the roles.

I really enjoyed the first three Spider-Man movies, and yes that includes Spider-Man 3. This new Spider-Man movie is also enjoyable but it fails to refresh the series. It seems that I was right in thinking that its too soon to do so.

Not as bad as everyone says it is

[kxsinc · 7/10 · 17 December 2021]

So when I watched this movie for the first time (way after it had come out), I was under the impression that it was a pretty forgettable movie by the Marvel fandom and I just needed to watch it so I could understand what would happen in No Way Home. So I have it watch.

Honestly, it was better than what I thought it was, but definitely one of the weaker Spider-Man movies. There are things that don't work in this movie - personally, Peter Parker as a skate kid didn't do it for me, a couple unsolved plots, and Uncle Ben (where was the famous line??) but there were good things too

The action and design of this movie was phenomenal. The swinging action is still the only movie that fully captures the agility of Spider-Man (the newer MCU ones don't really have these action shots) and the fight scenes are so cleverly made. Andrew Garfield got the Spider-Man half right - he captured the clever and witty personality of Spider-Man better than Maguire did. The second thing, really what stood out about this movie is the chemistry between Gwen and Parker. Something about their relationship connected and really made me think they were destined to be together. It's better than any other marvel ship that comes to my mind and thus just made the ending so satisfying for me.

I really don't get all the hate!

[TheNorwegianGuy · 9/10 · 10 November 2012]

I admit that I too didn't exactly get that excited when I heard that this was in the making. The Sam Raimi trilogy was a fun ride, and the idea of making another Spider-Man movie with a completely new cast seemed strange and unnecessary. When the cast was announced, I got a little bit curious, but nothing more.

However, when I watched it, I got a whole other impression. I really liked it. The atmosphere was great, and perhaps a little darker than the Sam Raimi movies at times. I know many of you who read this will hate me for saying this, but I actually think this movie was a LITTLE bit better that the previous ones. Not much, but just a hint better. One thing is the cast. I really didn't like Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man that much. I didn't have a huge problem with him back then, but now when I saw this, I must say that I like Andrew Garfields "version" better. He's a little more tougher, both physically and in personality. Also, I think Emma Stone did good as Gwen Stacy. I liked her better as Peter Parker's girlfriend than Kirsten Dunst. The Villain, too, was great. I won't say more about him, not wanting to spoil anything.

When I read many of the reviews in here, I don't see much positivity about this movie. I think that's unfair. At least, it's mediocre. Giving this a 1/10 is criminally wrong. At least I think so. If you wonder if you should see this or not, at least give it a chance. Don't let the bad reviews scare you away.

A Fresh New Start

[RatchetJak94 · 13 July 2012]

Spider-Man is my favorite super-hero of all time. I've read the comics (mostly the Ultimate comics, but some of the 60's comics as well), played some of the video games, and watched the cartoons (The 1994 and 2008 series being some of my favorite animated shows of all time).

I enjoyed Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy (yes, even Spider-Man 3). When I heard that the series was being rebooted, I wasn't happy to hear about it. My expectations were neutral as time went by and when I walked out the theater, my expectations were blown away.

I don't want to compare this movie to the original trilogy, but I think it's necessary to see where this movie improved from the originals.

Let's start with the casting. Andrew Garfield is a great successor to Tobey Maguire. I can really relate to him like I always do with other incarnations of the web slinger. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is even better than Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson. Gwen is a much stronger character and the chemistry between her and Garfield as Peter Parker is believable. Rhys Ifans is great as Doctor Connors (a.k.a. The Lizard) and I like how he is a "Jekyll and Hyde"-type of villain (kind of like a few other villains... yeah). Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Uncle Ben and Aunt May, respectively, are also great as well. All the characters are portrayed very well and are believable.

The visual effects and the action scenes are good as usual, but nothing new.

The musical score by James Horner is also great, although I prefer Danny Elfman's score in the original trilogy because they felt more memorable and left a lasting impression. But, who knows? James Horner's score may grow on me over time.

If I have to name some complaints, it would have to be that some parts were rushed (although it's a minor nitpick) as well as a couple of parts not evaluated much. I think an extended cut of the movie would be necessary when it's released on DVD, but that's just me.

Overall, "The Amazing Spider-Man" is a fresh new start on the franchise. It has superb acting, thrilling action scenes (especially the climax), an amazing score, and being faithful to the comics but at the same time taking liberties to make it more interesting. Best Spidey movie ever? It's too early to tell but maybe. It's definitely worth watching and I am looking forward to the sequel.

Felt Like Watching a Comic Book! Give it a Real Chance

[buffingtondakota · 9/10 · 2 January 2022]

Really enjoyed this film. Obviously, this is a different take on Spider-Man than Maguire's or Holland's version. However, I don't see anything wrong with this version of Spider-Man. Honestly, I think this film is superior to the Maguire films; especially taking out of consideration nostalgia. First, the special effects are far superior in this film than they were in all 3 Maguire films, combined. Second, the story telling was way more in-depth and fully realized. The creators drive into Peter Parker's parents story/history. They give Aunt May & Uncle Ben a more relatable and fully realized story. The focus on how Peter Parker creates/becomes Spider-Man in a more "real" way, by showing him creating the web-shooters and costume using "real life resources", instead of in Maguire's version how he just magically made it himself with no comprehension to the audience why or how and the nonsensical bodily web-shooters lol. The relationships between the actors/characters feel organic and natural, and not at all awkward or forced like in Maguire's films. It truly felt like watching a comic book on screen rather than watching a big-budget Hollywood movie try to fame a beloved hero. This film felt like a DC/Batman movie at times, but not in a rip off way just coincidental way. Andrew Garfield gets a lot of slack for being the "lesser" Spider-Man, but honestly he was fantastic and played the character well. All of the actors played the characters well. I would strongly recommend giving this movie another chance and try to separate it from the nostalgic Tobey Maguire "Spider-Man" films. I had fun watching it and truly appreciated the hard work that went into creating this story/film.

One of the best adaptations.

[corneliussenespen · 6/10 · 19 October 2012]

Having realized I'm a sucker for all these comic book adaptations, of course I had to see this one as well. I never did like the earlier Spiderman movies, being the main role or the supporting ones, I'm not sure; but they still stand among the movies I'm not eager to watch again. But this one, on the contrary, was actually quite entertaining. Not was it only packed with really great CGI, but it had a great flow built up on both action, drama, romance and humor.

At least for me this is what makes a good movie. I never once thought "Oh, my goodness that was lame" (which I often actually do), instead I was rather surprised I was laughing out loud in more than one of the scenes.

All the actors did a MARVELous job, meaning all the jokes, the depth of the drama, and the sincerity of both the romance and the action stood solid throughout the movie. Speaking of the actors: the casting was brilliant. All of the main actors (and I guess most of the supporting ones) was perfect for their roles, and must have made the script it self proud.

The Amazingly Unnecessary Spider-man

[Ben_Horror · 5/10 · 17 July 2012]

With the success of the first X-Men movie in 2000, Bryan Singer pretty much paved the way for all the comic book movies we see today. That included a certain super hero movie made by Sami Rami in 2002 where a nerdy guy (Tobey Maguire) gets bitten by a radioactive spider and inherits superhuman powers. If Singer had paved the way, then Rami provided the icing on the cake: a faithful, smart, well-acted super hero flick that had as much heart and sincerity packed in as it had all those set pieces. It also lead to a superior sequel and the much maligned, though underrated, third episode.

Which brings us to what we have here: while not a beat for beat remake, you get the same story more or less with a different love interest and villain. Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) sneaks into a research facility and gets bitten by a radioactive/genetically enhanced spider. He gets super powers and becomes Spider-Man. Meanwhile, a doctor (Rhys Ifans) working at the same facility, is being forced to close down his research into tissue regeneration. In desperation, he injects himself with an untested self-generating lizard vaccine and becomes… a half man/half lizard thing. Spider-Man is then forced into action to stop him from spreading this contagion throughout the city of New York. Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) is the damsel in distress/love interest and plays a role in trying to stop the crazed beast.

First things first: this is not a bad film. It's well acted by all the principals, has good effects, a scary and menacing villain, some nice action sequences and web swinging effects that are generally slightly more realistic than the Rami version. Parker is more evidently scientific and intelligent here. Also the police's notion that Spider-Man is a menace to the public is more clearly defined, especially in the scene where he disarms an officer. The new idea is that Parker can hear the movements of spiders and it's a good addition. So where does it all go wrong? The short answer: it's just that it's so… pointless.

We had already seen the story before. There was absolutely no reason to tell it again. This movie could easily have been Spider-Man 4 with Andrew Garfield filling in the Spidey spandex instead of Tobey Maguire. But Marvel – in their infinite wisdom – just chose to tell the same story a second time. Going by that rationale, presumably Andrew Garfield will be cast aside like a disused sock when they inevitably choose to 'reboot' the franchise again in ten years or so. It is a scarily unimaginative tactic and it is one they will continue to do until there is a massive financial failure.

This movie follows the same set up as the 2002 version: Parker being picked on, getting advice from his sage-like uncle (Martin Sheen), being bitten, getting his powers/climbing walls, and turning his back on a situation which unfortunately has tragic consequences for a family member. It's all a case of been there, done that. If you want to compare it to the Rami original, then the short answer is; as good as Andrew Garfield is, Tobey Maguire was better. Maguire filled the suit better; on occasion, Garfield is prone to looking thin and scrawny during several scenes. Even the suit looked better in the Rami movies. And those earlier movies had a heart and sincerity – especially in the relationship between Peter and his aunt and uncle that you don't see here. Again we ask: why does this movie exist?

And there are holes: there's a massive lizard running around, wreaking havoc; yet the police are more preoccupied with pointing their guns at Spider-Man – despite the fact that he saved a child in a (surprise, surprise) rehashed scene set on a bridge taken from Rami's first movie. In another part, the citizens of the city (once again - in a bit taken from Rami's movie) unite to help Spider-Man cross the city using tower cranes – despite the fact that there are buildings all around him. Heck, even the villain is initially a do-gooder like Norman Osborn and Dr. Octavius – again from the Rami movies.

It also seems to pull inspiration from another super hero movie: Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins (2005) in that it's slightly darker, tells such a large origin story that just like Batman Begins, Spider-Man doesn't actually show up on screen for the first hour. So if you take two parts Batman Begins and add a touch of Rami's Spider-Man, the result is what you have here. Additionally, the introduction of the web shooters, while being faithful to the original comics and emphasizing Parker's intellect, is a bit of a mixed blessing. The notion of the web being an organic material rather than being fired from mechanical devices actually made more sense.

It's not that reboots are a bad idea, they're not. In certain situations they can work well, provided for example, enough time has elapsed. But there is no point in retelling the same story if the initial release is still relatively recent. In addition, it helps if the story wasn't covered well the first time, or it was a bad movie to begin with. Going by this criteria, Marvel's latest cash cow is unnecessary on all three accounts.

In closing, if you haven't already seen the Rami movie from 2002, go watch it instead. If you have seen it, then this probably won't live up to it and you will be left feeling a little underwhelmed. It's fair to say that for anyone over the age of eighteen, this movie will seem rather half-hearted and senseless; for those under eighteen, this movie will probably be the greatest super hero flick ever. Yes, it's a movie that will divide opinions, primarily on the sole reason for its existence. Not a bad, or a badly made flick, by any means… just a pointless one.

Had this come out 10 or 15 years ago, I would have loved it...

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 25 August 2012]

I can't take credit for the summary--my oldest daughter said that when we left the theater after seeing "The Amazing Spider-Man". That's because with all the many, many super-hero movies out in recent years, this one loses a bit of something--especially since there are clearly better films of its genre (such as "Iron Man" and "The Avengers"). It's decent but there are better products out there.

First, let's talk about what I loved. The CGI was incredible and for the first time it really looks like Spider-Man is flying. It's very seamless and looks brilliant. Also, the Spider-Man costume and movements are all great.

What I thought was lacking in the film. It's ALL CGI and special effects--and nothing much more. The characters and dialog just didn't seem all that important. And because of this, it's spectacular to watch but nothing more....nothing. And, while I think about it, why, oh why didn't they include THE most important line in any Spider-Man film--Uncle Ben's line "With great power comes great responsibility"?! It is the perfect summation of who the character is and according to Stan Lee it is Spider-Man...so why is it missing?!

Predictability, uninteresting action sequences, and an awful soundtrack keep this film from being on par or even setting its self apart from the previous decade's Spiderman.

[disgruntledjigglypuff · 6/10 · 22 July 2012]

First off, this is only my opinion, but really my biggest issue with this film was that it was just kinda boring. About 30 minutes in, I already knew fundamentally everything significant that would transpire in the film. Now that in itself might be a given some might argue, however at that point in the movie, I assumed I would still enjoy it as I expected some spectacular action. Had I been impressed with the fight scenes and jumping around being Spiderman I don't think I would have cared as much about the boring story because it would be redeemed in another aspect.

However, the action and special effects in the film were also...kinda...boring. In fact the most spectacular visual moment in the entire film where Spiderman jumps of the top of the tower antenna, and it falls with him as he saves himself was already shown to us in the trailer. I won't go into the fight sequences but for me there was just never really a moment that made my heart race.

Lastly the soundtrack was terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible, feeling very out of place in many parts, most notably the fight between the Lizard and Spiderman in the High School. I would normally assume in a scene like that, which is Spiderman and the Lizard's first real physical confrontation, for the music to be more menacing, however it opts for a very happy and victorious theme music. Considering Spiderman doesn't exactly whoop the Lizard there, it's a little out of place. There is however a memorable humorous scene in that altercation.

So...this is just kinda boring and not very exiting, as far as movies like this, I personally enjoyed more "The A Team","Red","The Avengers","Thor", the first two Spidermans, (Spiderman 3 was terrrrrrible).

Meh..

[anna01010 · 6/10 · 3 June 2022]

I hadn't seen this iteration of Spiderman before, but after watching this movie, I don't feel like I missed much. I just couldn't get past the casting. Andrew Garfield looks every bit of 30 in this role. I know we have to suspend logic to get into the fantasy, but come on, give us a little help, yeah? There really wasn't anything memorable or outstanding about this film. It's just something to do when you're really bored, I think.

The 'BATMAN BEGINS' of Spider-Man films, I'd go as far as to say it's amazing!

[Hellmant · 10/10 · 6 July 2012]

'THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN': Five Stars (Out of Five)

The 'BATMAN BEGINS' of Spider-Man films, this reboot to Sam Raimi's blockbuster trilogy doesn't disappoint and I'd go as far as to say it's amazing! Director Marc Webb (who made his debut with 2009's critically acclaimed hit '(500) DAYS OF SUMMER') takes over the franchise with Andrew Garfield (of 'THE SOCIAL NETWORK' fame) replacing Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker, a.k.a. Spider-Man. The film was written by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent (who also co-wrote 'SPIDER-MAN 2' and '3') and Steve Kloves (who wrote every 'HARRY POTTER' film). This film focuses entirely on Peter's high school years while he learns to first develop his powers as well as cope with the disappearance of his parents and who his father really was (unlike the original Sam Raimi film). It's also a little more faithful to the comic, in some ways, by having Parker develop artificial web-shooters that he uses to swing around on, rather than being able to produce them physically as part of his super powers. It also goes back to having Gwen Stacy (his original love interest from the comics) as the object of his affection rather than Mary Jane (like the Raimi films). Gwen is played beautifully by 'it girl' Emma Stone (the object of Jim Carrey's obsession). The movie, despite treading on some old ground, is thoroughly entertaining and powerfully well made.

This story begins with Peter as a young boy (Max Charles) being left in the care of his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field) by his parents (Campbell Scott and Embeth Davidtz), who disappear without ever being heard from again. Peter grows up to be a somewhat awkward teen (Garfield, who's way too old to play a teen) but is much cooler than Parker probably should be; he rides a skateboard and actually flirts (successfully) with his high school crush Gwen Stacy (Stone). One day he finds his father's old briefcase which leads him to seek out his father's old associate, a scientist by the name of Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans). Gwen actually works at Oscorp with Connors, which is where Parker stumbles into a lab experimenting on genetically modified spiders and is bit by one. He of course develops spider like powers and when his Uncle is killed makes it his mission to fight crime and get revenge. In this film he must deal with Dr. Connors' alter ego, the genetically mutated monster 'The Lizard' (which is the first time the classic Spider-Man villain has graced the silver screen), as well as the police, lead by Gwen's father Captain Stacy (Denis Leary).

The movie does go over a lot of the same plot points as the original Sam Raimi hit but it delves a little more deeper in to them. I thought the first two 'SPIDER-MAN' films had a great amount of emotional drama and character development (which is why they're two of my favorite films) but this installment manages to outdo them. It really gets in to the character of Peter Parker, on a relatable level to almost every high school nerd (present or past) and Garfield plays him amazingly. I thought Maguire was about as good a Spider-Man as they could have casted but somehow Garfield manages to outdo him, mostly with passion for the role (he says he cried the first time he put on the costume). Stone is a little cuter and more adorable than Kirsten Dunst, I wouldn't say she's a better actress but it's definitely easier to fall for her character than Mary Jane's (due to Stone's likability). Sheen and Field are classic like always and Ifans makes a memorable insane villain. The acting is definitely a little better in this film but the script is also smarter and more complex and Webb's direction is impressively fitting. I wouldn't say he's as good a director as Sam Raimi but it's nice to see a different take on the series. Besides all the material that's already been done there's definitely enough new stuff to make the film interesting and thrilling. I'd say it's a better reboot film than 'BATMAN BEGINS' even, it's no 'THE DARK KNIGHT' but it is better than Nolan's original Batman film. If you're a fan of the series or the character (and Spider-Man is my favorite superhero) you're sure to be thrilled.

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhcS7Q-CkYE

Amazing

[fstgn · 10/10 · 28 October 2021]

Andrew Garfield plays spider-man and Peter Parker really good! Peter Parker plays shy/nerd but in a good way ofc and he play spider man amazing! He's so sarcastic in a really funny way it was the funniest out of every Spider-Man movie ever made.

Andrew Garfield is an excellent portrayal of Spider-Man

[connormahone · 29 December 2021]

I love the passion he has for this character, I love the chemistry with Emma Stone, I love his emotions in this movie, I love his expressions, I love how he manages to act his ass off without having to see his face, and I love the visuals in this film. If the ASM2 suit was used in this one instead of the sub-par suit we got in this, it would be the best spider-man movie.

"The good effort but not amazing spiderman"

[JeffTheBadger · 7/10 · 26 June 2012]

To start off I want to say I enjoyed this movie… but even as I type that I do question exactly how much.

People have talked about the CGI not being up to scratch and parts of the 3D being blurry but I don't think that was the problem. The action was great, the characters were good but it seemed to be one "amazing" set piece scene after another with very little connecting them. I often found myself wondering what happened to get from point A to C, B seems to happen off screen for a large portion of the film.

I know the words "gritty" and "dark" seem to crop up every time someone talks about a good superhero film but I don't think that needs to be the case, I like superhero films to be larger than life – that's kind of the point! For the inevitable comparison with the Sam Raimi spiderman film, I would say it is more gritty, a little darker, slightly less fun and a lot less coherent.

An overall enjoyable watch but not sure "amazing" should have been in the title.

Meh at best.

[projectxclan · 6/10 · 4 July 2012]

This reboot had a different feel then the other spiderman movies. The reason being is that this reboot felt more directed towards adults. This is not to say its not appropriate for younger viewers because its perfectly fine for most youngsters. This spiderman has very little scenes that grab at children rather more of a straight action film with no comedy. Spiderman was much closer to the original hero in this film and i can and did really appreciate that. I found that spiderman 4 would have probably done just as well as The Amazing Spiderman. The movie seemed to drag on much longer then needed with a very slow start. I think the only real thing that would appeal to people is that spiderman is not played by Tobey Maguire which in itself is worth at least a watch.

Not so amazing spiderman

[samarth-sri · 6/10 · 18 July 2012]

Even though many reviewers are calling this as improvement over Spiderman 1 but I think otherwise. First of the franchise would have done better to make a sequel instead of rebooting everything - with new actors. Since spiderman 3 did not live upto expectations, people started criticizing both Toby & Kirsten. I think they did a pretty good job (even part 3 was not awfully bad). But rebooting doesn't make sense. That too, only after 10yrs. They should have waited another 25-30 yrs for that.

Also they should have taken some lessons from the way X-men & Batman franchises have gone. Batman (1989) was possibly the only good movie in batman series and there was plenty of scope for improvement. That's what they did, starting with Batman Begins, Dark Knight & D K Rises (pretty sure it's going to be bigger than Amazing Spiderman, possibly overtake even Avengers). Stronger plot, better acting, better direction, dialogues, action sequences, CGI effects etc. They took it to a whole new level. In case of X-men, they started pretty well with X-men 1,2 but had couple of blunders in between. But they corrected it X-men first class. My first X-men movie was X-men FC which was very likable that I watched all the other ones too. But the need for a prequel of X-men was there. Since Charles Xavier and Magneto had worked together as shown in earlier movies. Spiderman 1 already had almost everything (may be a bit rushed though but so is Amazing SM). If there was anything needed, it was a sequel or a completely new plot not a reboot. At the end of the movie, I felt like it was a nice movie BUT WAS THERE ANY NEED FOR IT ?

PS - Some improvements are definitely there but there are some let downs as well, the movie has many scenes rushed into it. BUT I'll prefer Spiderman (2002) over ASM.

The Fast-Paced Reinvention of a Hero

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 10 November 2012]

The trilogy of the Spider-Man by Sam Raimi is very faithful to the comic book's hero from my childhood. "The Amazing Spider-Man" is not a bad movie, but is a fast-paced reinvention of the hero and therefore I was a little disappointed with the story.

Peter Parker is no longer the outcast nerd that is bullied by everyone at high-school and needs to work to support his beloved Aunt May. He dates Gwen and immediately discloses his identity to her. After discovering that he has superpowers, he immediately jumps from the top of a building in a reckless attitude. He does not also grieve the loss of his Uncle Ben. There are many other differences regarding the original Spider-Man.

The best that this film offers are the top-notch special effects that are very impressive. The story is only reasonable and I prefer Sam Raimi's movies. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "O Espetacular Homem-Aranha" ("The Spectacular Spider- Man")

Exciting!

[christianssteger · 7/10 · 4 January 2019]

This film provides some fast paced, well made action scenes! One of the top 3 Stan Lee cameos, A great portrayal of Spider-Man, and to top it off AMAZING effects and CGI.

A solid entry into an already solid franchise.

[Xandercell · 8/10 · 13 June 2013]

Here are my quick thoughts,

I had my reservations and kept my expectations in check going into this film and didn't know what to expect but thankfully Marc Webb managed to do a fantastic job despite the fact that he did hit a lot of the same elements from Sam Raimi's 2002 Spider-man, nonetheless this is a promising start to a new trilogy.

Andrew Garfield hits it out of the park with his performance as Peter Parker and Emma Stone is Wonderful as Gwen Stacey their chemistry is obvious from the start. The inclusion of Dr. Curt Connors/The Lizard was long overdue and was played adequately by Rhys Ifans, Martin Sheen and Sally Field were great as Uncle Ben and Aunt May as was Dennis Leary's Captain Stacy.

In short, a solid cast, great story and wonderful effects inject new blood into an already great blockbuster franchise.

Doesn't really add anything new to the franchise

[cricketbat · 6/10 · 10 July 2018]

When I first heard about this reboot, I wondered "Why?" Then, after seeing some press about it, I decided to give it a chance. After seeing the movie, I can now confidently say, "Why?" Don't get me wrong, I think Andrew Garfield makes an excellent Spider-Man and I always like seeing Emma Stone act, but this movie doesn't really add anything new to the franchise. In fact, at times it feels like the same movie as the first Spider-Man. I like The Amazing Spider-Man, but it's not really that. . .wait for it. . .amazing. Boom! See what I did there?

Be amazed

[GaawiinMashiNinibaasiin · 3 July 2012]

This movie truly delivers. Great cast, great acting, great story, great action, and most importantly great story telling. It's one of those movies that put you at its mercy. Slowly its invisible web tangles you around and before you know it, you're bound and powerless. You get immersed to the story, to the emotions of the scene. You can't help but to feel what Peter Parker is feeling. His pain, his anger, his joy, his anguish. And you want him to win over the villain. You're relieved when he overcomes obstacles. Then at the end of the movie you enthusiastically clap your hands together to applaud the great performance that you just saw. That's how I felt. I was reluctant to see it at first. The trailers didn't impress me. I've seen previous movies with Tobey Maguire and thought that they're pretty well made. Though I'm not a fan, the fact that they cast a different person to play the role of spider-man this time around was both confusing and appalling to me. Had the ticket not been free, I wouldn't have gone to see it. I came to the theater with no expectation other than that I'd be disappointed. But this movie turned me into a believer. This is the best spider-man movie. Andrew Garfield is Peter Parker. He even sounds like Peter Parker from the cartoon show. His performance was so great it's infectious. He deserves an Oscar notch for this role. Why not? Why can't a movie be entertaining and Oscar worthy at the same time? I'm sure this movie has flaws when you dissect it. And I'm sure it disappoints a lot of spider-man fans in some ways. But sometimes you just have to sit back, relax and enjoy the ride. What a great ride it was for me. 10 out of 10.

PS. I saw this on 2D.

It ain't bad

[dp-17275 · 7/10 · 26 February 2019]

It's a good movie, I recommend it. It really does nothing new with the Spider-man character but its a fun watch. Andrew Garfield fits into the role of Spider-man perfectly, but struggles to become Peter Parker; since Andrew Garfield does not have that same boyish charm Tobey Maguire had, he is not a nerd and you never believe it. The villain is pretty good, very over the top, but in the first 40 minutes he's interesting and unique, until he isn't. The villain is the lizard and seeing him fighting Spider-man is fun. The music is acceptable, it gives Spider-man a nice theme you can hum and the movie is quite inspiring. The end fight is very fun to watch and if you invest in the characters enough, you can feel some emotion in the end. Gwen Stacy is an excellent character and has great chemistry with Peter Parker. The origin story is kinda fascinating until you realize it's a more dumb downed version of the Raimi origin story. Uncle Ben literally says 'with great power comes great responsibility' but he couldn't say that exactly because then people would accuse it of being too similar, instead he says "Your father had a philosophy, that if you could do good things for other people, you would've had a moral obligation to do those things. that's whats at stake, not choice....Responsibility' such a dumb downed speech. Excellent special effects and sometimes does feel like an attempt to 'Dark knight' Spider-man but regardless of that it's a very fun movie and I highly recommend watching it but don't try to compare it with the original because then it won't be fun.

Watch It for Andrew Garfield's Winning Performance!

[namashi_1 · 6/10 · 29 June 2012]

'The Amazing Spider Man' lacks the excitement in comparison to the legendary the trilogy directed by Sam Raimi. But if you look at it as a new story all together, it offers some interesting moments. But, for me, this film works primarily for one reason: Andrew Garfield's Winning Performance as Peter Parker / Spider-Man!

'The Amazing Spider-Man' Synopsis: Peter Parker finds a clue that might help him understand why his parents disappeared when he was young. His path puts him on a collision course with Dr. Curt Connors, his father's former partner.

'The Amazing Spider Man' is fabulously shot & grandly made. But, I personally felt, that, the Screenplay wasn't up-to the mark. To give its due rightfully, there are some very interesting sequences & the action set-pieces are excellent, but overall, the desired impact, seems a bit missing.

Screenplay by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent & Steve Kloves has merits, but it could've been stronger nonetheless. Marc Webb's Direction is stylish. Cinematography is perfect. Editing is vast. Graphics are outstanding. Action set-pieces, as mentioned, are excellent.

Performance-Wise: Andrew Garfield is up for top honors. The actor is fantastic as Peter Parker / Spider-Man! Its a performance that deserves immense praise. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, does a good job. Rhys Ifans as Dr. Curt Connors / The Lizard, plays the menace easily. Martin Sheen as Ben Parker & Sally Field as May Parker are impressive, as always. Denis Leary as Captain George Stacy, is in command after a long time. Irrfan Khan as Dr. Rajit Ratha, deserved more footage.

On the whole, 'The Amazing Spider Man' isn't Amazing, but stunning to look at nevertheless.