The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

Probable Score

Not Enough Info

Your Score

(0 - 100)

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. (imdb)

More Information and Actions

Cast and Information

Directed By: Marc Webb

Written By: Stan Lee, Alvin Sargent, Steve Kloves, James Vanderbilt

Starring: Martin Sheen, C. Thomas Howell, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Campbell Scott, Sally Field, Emma Stone, Embeth Davidtz, Andrew Garfield, Amber Stevens West, Max Charles, Kelsey Asbille

Genres: Suspense/Thriller, Fantasy, Action, Adventure

Franchises: The Amazing Spider-Man, Spider-Man

Country: USA

Stream it now

Invalid Trailer

Ratings

Collections

Stats

Loading...
loading

The Amazing Spider-Man belongs to 43 collections

1. Superheroes (collaborative: moderated by mpowell - 30 stars)

2. Marvel (collaborative: moderated by mpowell - 14 stars)

3. Films available in HD (collaborative: moderated by kubricksucks - 13 stars)

4. #1 at the US Box Office (collaborative: moderated by BeeDub - 10 stars)

5. Extra scene after credits (collaborative: moderated by djross - 7 stars)

6. Best by different standards (public: sesito71 - 6 stars)

7. Availability: Netflix Canada (collaborative: moderated by geohawk - 5 stars)

8. Top 3000 movies with the most votes on IMDb (public: fanfic - 5 stars)

9. Nostalgia Critic Episodes (collaborative: moderated by KirkJiggler - 4 stars)

10. 3D (collaborative: moderated by djross - 3 stars)

11. Product Placement (collaborative: moderated by Jellysauce - 3 stars)

12. Worldwide box office over $500,000,000 (collaborative: moderated by djross - 3 stars)

13. Big-time Hollywood superhero movies (public: djross - 3 stars)

14. Top 1000 movies with the most votes on IMDb (public: fanfic - 3 stars)

15. Biopunk (collaborative: moderated by mattburgess - 2 stars)

16. Cinema Sins (collaborative: moderated by Phantom Nook - 2 stars)

17. Top 2000 movies with the most votes on IMDb (public: fanfic - 2 stars)

18. Budgets of more than $150,000,000 (collaborative - 1 star)

19. Worldwide box office over $750,000,000 (collaborative: moderated by djross - 1 star)

20. Duology (collaborative: moderated by Ag0stoMesmer - 1 star)

21. Netflix instant LATAM (collaborative: moderated by Roman_Herbom - 1 star)

22. AwardsDaily.com's Contender Tracker 2012 (public: Ross - 1 star)

23. Spider-Man (collaborative: moderated by mpowell)

24. James Horner (composer) (collaborative: moderated by djross)

25. FThisMovie Ugly (collaborative)

26. -Movies (collaborative: moderated by vegetarekt)

27. Reboot (collaborative: moderated by djross)

28. Modern(-ish) Superheroes Films (collaborative: moderated by amazedemon)

29. Super Hero Movies (collaborative: moderated by anarchistica)

30. Marvel Movies (collaborative: moderated by anarchistica)

31. Available on Divicast (collaborative: moderated by Dunstan-xxx)

32. My films (public: Ross)

33. Movies I've Seen In Theaters (public: SirStuckey)

34. 2012: Year in Review (public: polanski28)

35. My Movies (public: Thilerion)

36. saw in theater (public: ribcage)

37. Movie Collection (public: BeeDub)

38. 2012, Worst of (public: Matthew Parkinson)

39. Complete Theatrical Watchlist (public: SageSledge)

40. My Movie Collection (public: elhenzo)

41. Seen, Not Rated (public: SageSledge)

42. juntakinte99 Spider-Man (public: juntakinte99)

43. Marvel (public: LibraLynx98)

Browse the full list of collections

Show:

All Ratings | With Reviews

Order by:

TCI | Percentile | Date Rated | # Stars (Reviews)

Stars	User	Rating
9	BillyShears	50 _21st
I would shoot so much webbing on Emma Stone WAKKA WAKKA. The use of Anthony Perkins as Peter Parker was masterful.
6	spleen	83 _80th
Despite a running time of 130 minutes, there's a ton o' plot holes and unanswered questions I'll try to explain here: Q:Peter Parker is so knowledgable about genetics, why? A:He wears glasses. Q:Whatever happened to his mom? A:Who cares. Q:Were his parents murdered? A:Not relevant, got a date. Q:Why are Parker and Flash buddies by the end? A:Uncle Ben was shot. Q:What happened to the middle Eastern guy after the bridge incident? A:No one cares. Not a bad reboot just not a classic either.
6	juntakinte99	60 _22nd
If this movie had tried a modernized play revival style slant on the origin, it would've been okay. Instead, it's odd to see a teenage Peter Parker use Bing more than social media. And the fun Donner/Raimi approach has Spider-Man naively (unlike other post-Dark Knight superheroes) forget to hide his secret identity. Garfield & Stone are a good couple, but lack a real villain or message. The sequel's The Night Gwen Stacy Died adaptation is a stronger flick. Marginal recommendation for comic fans.
5	MArkjp	40 _16th
Plot moves forward as if the writers don't give a fuck. They'd have been better off putting: "He got bit by a radioactive spider" in writing in the beginning and using the time saved to develop the antagonist. We all know the backstory anyway. Also: You don't hire directors for a project simply because you're amused at the prospect of some good jokes regarding their surname in future PR campaign. +1 for the "the jocks will like you if your uncle is killed" morale, though.
5	BeeDub	88 _75th
A pretty good reboot with a great cast and believable characters. Better than Spider-Man 1 & 3, and almost as good as 2.
4	KasperL	50 _30th
Would have been a reasonably acceptable effort, had the script not been so damn similar to the film we all saw 10 years ago. Garfield is a good actor but I found his characters (PP & Spidey) annoying. Props to Ifans - but a talking lizard is inevitably going to turn out silly, won't it?
4	XakkMaster	80 _62nd
Ranks with Raimi's SM2 as the best film adaptation of Spider-Man. Obviously it feels like we've seen segments of this movie before (we have), but it's like a fine restoration. We see things a bit clearer and there's added back story. Also, Garfield is more interesting as Peter despite occasional moments (script issues) where awkwardness feels a little forced. Plot wise, Connors is a tragic villain. The complex humanity in supporting characters like him and Gwen makes this a successful reboot.
4	Langelund (CinemaZone.dk)	65 _57th
Feels a bit too familiar for obvious reasons, but nevertheless superior to Raimi's original. Most importantly Garfield is ten times more intriguing in the lead than Maguire ever was, the Gwen Stacy character serves a real purpose for the story (Mary Jane was just in the way) and the villain is almost three-dimensional! Bring on the sequels.
4	FrederikA	60 _49th
Despite a strong feeling of deja-why and a rushed plot, the new spidey is a more pleasing encounter than its older brother. Perhaps because its high-school storyline and the actors involved aren't as downright annoying.
3	Pickpocket	3 _28th
The Lizard's transformation was literally into this: http://i.imgur.com/8VNRw.jpg
3	Anomaly	78 _69th
It's unfortunate that due to the circumstances of its production the new Spider-Man has to fight preconceived judgments, but it does its job admirably in making a well-worn origin story feel exciting all over again. The character development is handled much better than the previous films, helped by the strong acting. The requisite few cheesy moments all superhero films seem to have are quick and painless, and it is overall an unexpectedly satisfactory reboot.
3	Barthalen	61 _40th
I really like Garfield as an actor, so he managed to lessen my annoyance with some of the contents. Still, the end result feels like a retread that doesn't really add anything interesting. Just your run-of-the-mill superheroey stuff. On top of that, Lizard is a lame villain, there's too much drama and the whole thing feels forgettable. Seeing Spidey slinging through town was fun though.
3	Nearphotison	86 _77th
Exciting and fresh despite revisiting the origin story. Manages to separate itself wholeheartedly from the Raimi films, and Andrew Garfield is terrific as the new Peter Parker. Manages to be both darker and funnier, which is no small feat.
3	Beer94	66 _56th
Despite the obvious flaw of a rehashed story, there's a lot to like about this movie. Great acting; Stone never ceases to amaze me. Smart slick humour which I always love and some pretty great action sequences. A few odd soundtrack choices among the flaws but overall, I liked it!
3	Ray	75 _71st
Whilst it suffers from a fairly lacklustre villain, this is a strong retelling of a well known tale. Garfield and Stone both deliver, with excellent support from Sheen, Field and Leary. It breaks no boundaries, but it is a very promising start for this new Spiderman franchise.
3	hellboy76	69 _73rd
Personally I think this Spider-Man is better than any of the Raimi incarnations. Garfield effortlessly captures the baiting humor Spider-Man used as his number one weapon at times. I personally enjoyed a little more character development. The only real knock was the choice of bad guy, and the execution of his appearance. Still very entertaining if you are into the comic books.
3	TheDailyNathan	63 _22nd
Genericsuperhero flick, and for a 2012 big budget movie, it didn't even have big visuals or action to prop it up. Andrew Garfield is a good actor but his cool sauve is not right for Peter Parker, who's supposed to be a geeky kid. It also doesn't feel like there's any connection to Spiderman - the man in the suit is completely different, and there's no indication to how the alter-egos affect each other. The film is devoid of any interesting supporting characters. Original trilogy was better.
3	TheEscapist	60 _20th
They took the original Spider-Man (2002) and then turned it into a generic superhero film. Still, I've always liked the Lizard as villain and it's cool to see him on screen. The Stan Lee cameo was nice and so were the first-person camera shots. Acting wasn't bad, the script just didn't deliver. Seems to be more aimed at kids judging by how the new Spidey behaves, but then there's also a lot of scripted teen romance that doesn't really blend well. Film lacks identity & direction but is watchable.
2	lrampartl	43 _20th
Like half the fucking city knows who Spider-Man is
2	MJVmovieMan	75 _67th
While this is a total cash grab, the studio chose a solid director in Marc Webb to elevate the romance between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey and make this new Spider-Man worth taking a second chance on. The 3D action is often tremendous, and the lead actors in Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone truly make the film feel fresh and exciting outside the expected origin story retread we saw only 10 years ago. The villain lacks some, so while 'Amazing' doesn't match Raimi's 'Part 2', it beats 1 and 3.
2	frederic_g54	5 _21st
Granted, the last installment dropped the ball, though I can't remember it being so frustratingly boring. Great action is derived not from ear-deafening roars or gratuitous fights but rather from the life-threatening situation characters find themselves in and our desire of watching them prevail over it. In this case, I couldn't care what happened to who, where or why because of the contrived drama and rather flimsy revisit of the comic's plot points. And get a haircut you big douche!
2	andayb	50 _27th
one does not simply go from making quirky romantic comedies to action blockbusters. Even though Garfield and Stone outclass their predecessors, the new story simply doesn't. the script is meh, the action is yawn, and if it weren't for the chemistry between the leads, the "amazing" spider-man would be amazingly boring.
2	Luna6ix	82 _80th
Raimi might have made a gadzillion with his iterations of the Spider-Man movies, but that doesn't mean they were any good. This movie is simply the best thing to happen to Spider-Man since the cartoon series in the 90's. I had my reservations upon seeing Garfield in the title role, but he pulled it off pretty well and I congratulate Webb on a job well done. Also, this one has got a pretty good Stan Lee cameo--don't they all?
2	whatismyname	65 _63rd
A pleasant change from the last Spider-man film with Maguire. Even though I've only seen one other film of Andrew Garfield's, I can already say I feel he's a great actor.
2	INDYATMN	77 _48th
Garfield is great in this reboot which gives us a Peter Parker who's wounded & haunted even before his Uncle Ben's offed. It's part of a larger Parker backstory that draws us in even more than Raimi's more lighthearted original, but only up 2 a point. Eventually the more shaded characterizations give way 2 slight, formulaic variations & despite unfinished attempts at "profound" monologues, the Lizard's no great villain. It never feels like the kind of fresh start Nolan gave us w/ Batman Begins
2	RealMacgyver	80 _79th
Andrew Garfield is spot on for the part and it features the best Stan Lee cameo so far BUT where are the quips?
2	Silver	4 _24th
So unnecessary. They had no idea what movie they are making - Spider-Man 4 or a complete reboot. As a result the main character's arc is ridiculous and the villain is just predictable horrifyingly executed CG abomination. Why suddenly he wants to turn everybody in NY into lizards? I know why - because The Amazing Spider-Man is written by the accountants at Sony Pictures.
2	Okkervil	38 _26th
It looks great, with much of the design excellent. Stone is good too, & the action is certainly entertaining, but that isn't enough & sadly there's little else to recommend. The whole movie is poorly stuctured, there is one piece of shockingly awful editing, & too many of the plot devices are eye-rollingly stupid. There's no real magic here! I'm very fond of Raimi's first two Spidey movies & this needless reboot brings nothing new to the table & fails to beat Raimi's Spider-Man in any way.
2	Bown	68 _22nd
A mostly fun, exciting effort that suffers from some of the worst Hollywood trappings. Garfield and Stone were both far superior to their predecessors, with Sheen also making a great Uncle Ben. Peter Parker and his relationships were explored extremely well, but Ifans as Curt Connors wasn't given much to work with. The action was very, very well-made, but the pacing otherwise felt off and the CGI was absolutely horrendous. Got a little too formulaic as it went on, but overall a good addition.
2	filmfreak88	75 _66th
Yes, the film doesn't exactly justify its existence having covered much of the same ground as Raimi's original. But with more emphasis on intimate moments, a sizzling chemistry between the two leads, and some skillfully crafted action sequences, Webb makes it worth our while.
2	mrandersen10	60 _20th
They dropped the ball on this one. Sure, Raimi's version was silly but it had a simple elegance and charming naivety that made it fun and entertaining. Those qualities are absent this go around and it chooses the dark and dramatic route and fails because of its sloppy screenwriting. The film also retreads too much of the original story while offering little of its own creativity. It's like listening to a cover of a familiar song--decent, but nowhere near as good.
2	Cinema_Asia	75 _71st
It's a surprisingly canon reboot of the franchise with a back story that's closer to the comic. This is definitely a darker film than Sam Raimi's spidey films but it doesn't lose the essential characterization of Peter Parker. I don't see anything Andrew Garfield brings to the character that Tobey didn't but he's still decent. The costume in this looks fantastic and the action scenes of spidey swinging over NY looks far better with today's CGI.
2	Matthew Parkinson (CineMarter)	20 _7th
The Amazing Spider-Man is an awful film. It's worse than Spider-Man 3, if that's the bar we're using to determine a Spider-Man film's (lack of) quality. Any good it does is ruined by the tedium and boredom, the lack of any originality, the terrible chemistry between the love interests who get far too much time attempting to get us to believe that they've got a budding relationship, the CGI lizard, or the script that drops potentially interesting or important plot points without any reason.
2	MrBitterness	65 _11th
Y'know, for a movie about the jokingest superhero in town, this movie is GRIM. Not to mention the fact that there are at least two subplots that the movie abandons before the one-hour mark. I'll freely admit that Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone hit their respective characters' marks, and the other key actors did fairly well in their own rights, but great performances can't save this movie from an underwhelming script and an inexperienced director. All in all, a big letdown.
2	Jerky	60 _72nd
What can I say...I enjoyed it!
2	Ashby	70 _35th
It's a mixed bag of stuff we have here. At times the direction and script is downright cringeworthy and at times the action and cinematogaphy are fantasically well done. I'm sort of ambivalent about Garfield, but luckily he is backed by a great supporting cast. Stone, Leary, Davis and Sheen all do an amazing job here. I do miss some of the charm and tongue-in-cheekness of the Raimi movies, but overall it's a very solid reboot, flaws and all. Better than Spider-Man 3 in any case.
2	teckgecko	60 _19th
Pro: solid acting (sadly, that's all). Cons: retreads too much ground too similarly to last trilogy. Many overly long or useless scenes (basketball, same-y battles & crime-fighting, etc.) could've been cut--a shorter film or reallocating the time toward a slower more organic build up to the final conflict instead of it beginning virtually out of nowhere would've been superior. An excess of close-up or POV shots of Spider-man swinging around--they're nauseating.
2	KramYessev	71 _59th
If you can look past the hit and miss humor, the awful soundtrack, a couple of jaw dropping moments of stupidty, a lackluster third quarter that descends into one too many Hollywood cliches and some of the worst CGI I've seen in a mainstream film in years (Lizard is the worst thing in the series, second only to the raping of Venom), this reboot is a welcome addition to the franchise. Sporting some superb action, acting and cinematography, "TASM" is superior to 3, unsurprisingly, but not to 1&2.
2	Leonardis	82 _40th
Editing my review in 2021. This needs a revisit. These Amazing Spider-Mam movies weren't bad or anything, I just have a hard time remembering them scene-for-scene, which isn't a good thing.
2	bof	49 _22nd
I don't care if it's supposedly an objectively better movie than Raimi's in terms of special effects, and possibly even lead actors; the plot still spends way too much time on nonsensical coincidences, and worst of all, it's not nearly as FUN. Webb thinks you just have to drop a few one-liners in there to make Spider-Man Spider-Man; he's wrong.
2	nobodyrobots	35 _2nd
I couldn't figure out what the hell was wrong with Peter Parker in this movie.
2	adouble	70 _44th
It's definetely pretty derivative of a movie that only came out 10 years ago, which doesn't help it, but there's things to like about it. Stone and Garfield are fantastic and have tons of chemistry, and Spider-Man works better as a character for me here than in the Raimi version. On the negative side, the villian is lame, the action scenes really aren't very exciting, and the POV shots are just awful. Still, I have hope for the future of these movies.
2	frs	78 _71st
I have no idea how they managed to pull this off.
2	Alex WS	45 _22nd
Peter Parker is an immature child who has trouble finishing his sentences while seemingly suffering from a drug abstinence making him twitch and constantly move his head while avoiding eye contact with people. I have no idea why Gwen has the hots for him, as I don't think they've exchanged more than fifty words together. Must be because of his awesome skateboarding skills. Or because she "is on his computer".
2	Dakota99	6 _62nd
Ultimately this Spidey universe is viewed as the black sheep on the franchise. Garfield was a solid Peter Parker, yet looking too old for the part. He also never fully captured the nerdy side within the character. Emma Stone is quite good too and there is a good band of chemistry. The Lizard however, was a subpar villain at best as he came off too goofy in a lot of interactions. Webb's turn in the franchise has its flaws, overall however this is a refreshing take on the web slinger.
2	Steel	48 _9th
There were definitely parts of this movie that I liked, but as a whole, I just found it disappointing. This movie had a chance to break away from the Raimi trilogy and try something fresh and original, but instead opted to just re-tell the story we've heard dozens of times by now with considerably less charm.
1	doctor7	68 _49th
It's good and plenty of fun except during the "love scenes" between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey, which just result in both Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield being utter bumbling buffoons. Simply put those moments are just outright terrible. Thankfully the rest of the film is certainly watchable, though Peter's family conspiracy feels quite forced.
1	Filligan	84 _56th
This reboot may have come too soon, but I find it a welcome and fresh adaptation with a lot of future potential. I like Garfield a lot (and not just as eye candy); I think he's an even better Spider-Man than Maguire. As Peter Parker, though, he's got some maturing to do. Marc Webb delivers again with his fun and fascinating visionary prowess. The Spidey sequences could rival the very best from Raimi's trilogy. I hope he sticks with the franchise and aims even higher.
1	Kavu	72 _51st
Plenty of holes in the script but it's still better than Raimi's first Spidey. Some pretty cool action sequences.
1	TheDiceman	55 _49th
A great spidey but not a great film, casting and characters were great, effects and story not so hot. All in all worth a watch.
1	cagedwisdom	75 _65th
Despite doing a lot of things I hated Spider-Man for doing the first time - the tedious origin story, the "we can't be together because Spidey-reasons" schtick, etc - I really liked this. Fresh script, good action, great on-screen chemistry. None of which can be said for the original trilogy, which was a horrible mistake best forgotten by all. The cast is good overall; Stone steals the show as usual. I would watch her in literally anything and this film wouldn't be nearly as good without her.
1	Ytadel	4 _43rd
There are some appealing ideas and performances in it (particularly the super-naturalistic Andrew Garfield as the titular character), but I found myself really missing that sublimely fun comic booky vibe of Raimi's universe. Ultimately, I still wish that Raimi had made his version of Spider-Man 4. By the way, how come new superhero movies (this and also Avengers and all its related films) seem to have given up trying to come up with iconic theme music for their heroes?
1	nutcrackr	55 _11th
Quite a terrible script, contrived elements crop up towards the end. Suddenly buildings are not good enough for Spidey's webs? I want an antidote machine that counts down too. Spidey is also an annoying jerk in the suit. Some good dialogue early between garfield and stone is short lived. Emma stone is probably the star and sally fields is badly wasted. Aside from some great action and effects, it's grossly inferior to the 2002 version. Also nobody fixed that leak in the basement.
1	gogokain	15 _26th
Where Raimi's Spider-Mans went mostly traditional, The Amazing Spider-Man attempts to modernize the story a bit, and for the most part it succeeds. The action scenes are spot on and look much better than Raimi's ever did, and besides a few lines by Garfield, the acting is more than adequate for a Spider-Man movie. Sadly it's almost completely undone by a atrociously hokey Michael Bay style final act (mostly the crane scene) that had absolutely no business in the movie.
1	cowfrappe	70 _58th
A surprising and fun revamp carried by Garfield and Stone, who are excellent.
1	mlightle3	80 _60th
Not a bad movie, pretty great depiction of Spiderman.
1	parcaliham	35 _10th
9 temmuz 12, kanyon, ozge ile. & The Amazing Spiderman, yer yer komedi ile aksiyonu iyi harmanlamis ama yine de bir marvel filmi olarak yetersiz bir is.
1	joseywales	77 _79th
Excellent example of an origin story!
1	evrana	52 _17th
Unlike the X-Men relaunch; this one didn't work at all in my opinion. You can tell this story only so many times without adding much to it. Thye didn't put much detail in Connors character; so he made a very generic villain. The only shining part was Emma Stone.
1	Space Pope	60 _31st
I mean it's not bad. The performances are solid all round, it's dynamic enough, and for the most part the unbearably silly scenes are confined to the first act when it feels way too much like a shitty high school dramedy on the CW, replete with awful pop-music cues. But it's also a bit slow, a bit uninteresting, and it's Spiderman's origin story, which I'm just sick of by now even if it is one of the better ones. Yeah, it's not bad, but ultimately it feels like the license protection film it is.
1	twincinema	40 _18th
Garfield and Stone may be the two strongest actors as leads in the Spider-Man films, but the results are underwhelming. Did we really need another Spider-Man origin film so soon after the Raimi films? Forgot that the crane operators of New York all rallied together to help Spidey Man. Also, find it amazing that no iteration of Peter Parker has any hesitation towards heights. Just willing to throw themselves off a building and hope the web works.
1	LennyNero	60 _42nd
Not really bad but completely unnecessary. The villain is really lame.
1	AFlickering	2 _18th
peter parker gets bitten by the fangs of puberty, comic book genre gets officially rendered defunct as a vital cinematic artform, i get to watch a stupid remake of a film only a decade old. everyone's a loser. :(
1	Tripwyre	84 _83rd
What a wonderful film. It's obviously flawed -- a major subplot was excised in the edit -- but who cares? No other superhero movie this year did more to invest me in the characters, and actually caring about the outcomes for our vulnerable heroes keeps the inevitable finale from feeling like a listless afterthought. To take nothing away from Raimi's films, this feels more like the character I grew up with. Webb crafts a strong rom-com out of the Spider-lore. Garfield, Stone & Sheen are terrific.
1	JooJoo	3 _30th
An okay reboot with some horrible script decisions, but most of the complaints are minor ones. My biggest problem is the need to make Peter Parker more accessible as a main character, some terrible music, and the complete butchering of the "with great power, comes great responsibility" line. The action is well done & Gwen Stacy always beats out MJ so there ya go.
1	Vandelay1	50 _51st
okay movie
1	dst7175	55 _41st
Making a reboot so close to the original makes this a boring first half and the fact that the original was better didn't help. But the visuals were great.
1	Zealot185	84 _80th
Although it appears like the same rehashed origin, it's the minor differences that make this version more fresh and appealing. Aside from remaining a nerd and being granted his jack-ass wit, Peter is portrayed as a rebellious punk. Rather than 100% happenstance, it's because of his actions against the rules that drive the story. Even the script rebels against prior versions by circumventing the most cliched line in Spidey's origin, and doing a reversal of Raimi's Spidey 1 funeral scene! Great!
1	Obdurate	65 _29th
The first Spider-Man movie I'd say I really enjoyed. It has its flaws and wank parts, but everyone did well and I like Andrew as Peter Parker much better than Tobey. A darker feel, but keeps the Spider-Man personality in tact. Also for those seeing it in 3D... it's mostly unnecessary but doesn't get in the way like The Avengers did.
1	TheRealJ-Ro	75 _55th
I somewhat lamented the re-boot of the Spider-Man series, even though I mostly disliked the third movie. As far as whether I "prefer" this version of the story to the Raimi version, I dunno, I guess. I do prefer Gwen Stacy and think that Emma Stone has done more with Gwen in one movie than Kirsten Dunst did with Mary-Jane Watson in three. Apparently this version is more canon than was Raimi's, I don't know but I will take people's word for it. I liked the Jekyll & Hyde aspect of Lizard. See it!
1	topaz420	75 _37th
Inoffensive is not what a Spider-Man movie should aim for, but is about all this one manages to achieve. You'll stare at the screen, you won't be bored enough to turn it off, but when it's all over you'll forget it the next day and never want to see it again. Filmed in native 3D and it really does add to the experience to watch it in that format.
1	HyphenateMe	70 _59th
Swing by this web site and you'll sense that this was a movie with a lot of heart, excellent action, but a few issues that poison the story line. A few plot strings are dropped out of no where, but it's enjoyable enough that I was forgiving.
1	WWallce4prez	56 _20th
A virtual rehash of the same stuff we saw not too long ago. Garfield gives the emo version of Parker without the goofiness that made Toby so annoying, but little else is any sort of improvement. A very safe route in what could have been something pretty amazing. Stone, however, is amazing.
1	sifter132	60 _11th
Unnecessary remake...
1	omgfridge	3 _27th
I miss Tobey
1	nauru	61 _60th
Way, way better than the 2002 version, and it's not even close. Tobey Maguire and his love interest were horrible casting choices. CGI web-swinging looks far better in this film than in the other spiderman films. The main weakness in this film is the writing--the motives of the villain aren't properly explained and don't really make sense. Still pretty good though. Martin Sheen and Sally Field are great in their supporting roles while Stone and Garfield do a decent job as well. Worth a watch.
1	Honest_Thief	3 _31st
A great cast and overall fun movie, but the emotional beats feel wrong or unimportant.
1	Jazzaloha	65 _46th
It seemed too early for a reboot, and I wondered if this remake would be meaningful. I liked the casting of Andrew Garfield (although I liked Maguire), but while this was an OK film, I didn't think it justified a remake. (ps:63)
1	VinegarBob	30 _12th
This could have been good. It started off okay...assholes.
1	FrankHowley	30 _3rd
Overlong, miserable and completely unnecessary. Sam Raimi's first two Spider-Man films are too good to ever displace.
1	homosuperior	67 _16th
Disappointing reboot of an already successful franchise is notable only for its charming and convincing lead actor, who is more my idea of Spider-man's physical & cultural type than Toby Mac Guire was. Nevertheless, this film is filled with ugly CGI, boring frame compositions, stupid exposition, confused morality and ridiculous plot holes. There's no sweep, not much drama, and little wit.
1	burkayadalig	58 _17th
a totally unnecessary and "amazingly" sloppy remake
1	glumpy_99	77 _51st
Beautifully crafted, flawlessly performed reboot suffers from a catastrophic case of bad timing; with memories of the Raimi series still too fresh, many of the plot points feel unfairly tired and predictable. A great shame; ultimately it succeeds to a greater degree than the earlier show, with exciting, well-developed action scenes and a greater 'reality' to Spidey's movements. Garfield is never quite credible as a nerd, but Sheen and Field are heartbreaking as his guardians. Bring on a sequel!
1	Ununnilium	70 _58th
I quite like the naturalistic style most of this movie is done in - and was a bit disappointed when it dropped out near the climax. Nevertheless, it's a pretty solid superhero movie, and well covers the aspect of Spider-Man that the original trilogy often missed - the humor.
1	Trash Puppet	7 _49th
...I'm tied between hating it (Emma Stone, the partially needless remakey-ness of it, and also that they're probably going to remake ALL of them.) and liking it (they might make a new-new avengers with him (spider-man) in it which could be cool, and also it made a little more sense than the Tobey Maguire one.).
1	boyakasha	50 _23rd
Why even make this? I thought they must've thought of SOMEthing original to justify remaking Spiderman so soon, but no. This is exactly the same as the first movie with Tobey Maguire (which was very good), but different actors and new villain. Wow. -20 points for lack of original ideas.
1	Clark Nova	84 _51st
FUCK YOU, DougCollins! You blind, sexist old fart! Gwen Stacy doesn't show ANY skin on this film! What about Mary Jane's succulent, braless, soaking-wet-under-a-t-shirt breasts on your beloved Raimi Spider-Man? No objection to that? Also, accusing Peter of having sagging pants (or "britches" as i'm sure you refer to them in private) is bullshit enough, but I saw your review of Birth of a Nation, buddy. RACIST. And Spider-Man has mucho personality!
1	basasdura	62 _43rd
The pacing is all over the place, the fight scenes quite hard to follow and generally silly. Besides, there is no tension and that was really a show-killer.
1	Bagger	75 _63rd
Garfield is no pre-Spiderbite Peter Parker, but both he and the movie really get their game on after the bite. The characters (Uncle Ben in particular) are stronger than the 00's iteration. The action is enjoyable, the girl likeable (and proactive) and the villain threatening enough, if a bit bland compared to the previous outings. Definetely worth a watch for doubters or people just looking for a good summer flick.
1	ZachReviews	88 _57th
Better than Spider-Man 3.
1	ratedargh	35 _10th
Don't care, don't care, don't care.
1	Hofschneider	70 _30th
dull.
1	myfavchords	68 _23rd
Does a franchise need to be rebooted in a mere 10 years? There are parts of this film that I really enjoyed. The first third of the film I think is unnecessary. There is not a need to tell the origin story again so soon after the last film series. I did enjoy the new villain played by Rhys Ifans and some of the action scenes. Overall this film is a near miss.
1	WalkenRoll	90 _93rd
I'd say everyone involved in the principal parts 'out-acted' anyone in Raimi's trilogy, especially Stone and Leary. I'd complain about the CGI heavy Lizard, but there's honestly no real way to make a huge, English speaking man lizard look realistic, so it works.A great reboot, it has the capability to put Raimi in the shade forever.
1	noisebloom	46 _7th
Not only is The Amazing Spider-Man an extremely lazy retread of the 2002 iteration, it makes no effort to develop the motives of its one-dimensional characters; while Parker's role is easily inferred, the villain is poorly fleshed out and barely believable. Add in some really poor pacing and storytelling (where was the second act, exactly?), and you easily have one of the worst modern superhero movies.
1	mattorama12	56 _26th
I think it would have benefited greatly from a shorter cut. There were some seriously slow moments, which have no place in a movie like this. The score had some issues, too. Also weird that the CGI seemed worse than the original. That being said, the casting was good and I was mostly entertained.
1	antidood1	50 _17th
Definitely has some strong points (great CGI, a thinner line between Peter Parker and Spider-Man), but I couldn't ignore the fact that this movie is in many ways similar to Raimi's Spider-Man. Some other problems I had were Spider-Man being a complete dick, some terrible dialogue, and some failed attempts at lighthearted humor. Lastly, I bet Andrew Garfield is a fine actor, but I didn't buy his Peter Parker for one second. He, and the movie in general, both felt a bit fake and heartless to me.
1	htiman	30 _4th
This movie has a lot of flaws, like poor writing and a very lame version of The Lizard as a villain. One of the worst things is that Garfield is just a bad actor, making Peter Parker into a very annoying character. Overall, this is easily the worst Spider-Man movie.
1	Ag0stoMesmer	1 _20th
45 mins to tell an origin story We All Know, tired pimps 'n' ho's guff from a bygone age and general lack of New York place-ness. The soundtrack: tame orchestral -because blockbuster?- from a city that gave us Gershwin, punk rock, rap etc. etc. pffft. An unconvincing romance, poorly drawn baddies with senseless motivations and a Parker who starts a friendless dick and becomes a bully. Makes 2002s look Amazing. [df]
1	manwhonose	89 _29th
The undeniably talented cast is short-changed by a formulaic, paint-by-numbers script, which is overly cynical and ultimately pointless.
1	talonmalon	48 _16th
The Amazing Spider-Man isn't bad, especially for a reboot that really doesn't need to exist. Sam Raimi's trilogy ended a mere five years prior to this movie, so the need for this movie is rather questionable. But ultimately, it turns out okay despite feeling a little familiar.
1	DyanneThorne	55 _40th
I mean, I actually found the scene with the cranes genuinely moving. But I was at the same time acutely aware, that a) Spidey should have been able to swing through the city, just using buildings and b) the cranes would have taken so long to get into place, that even the slowest version of Spider-man would still have gotten there faster than waiting for them. What I'm getting at is: there's heart in this movie, but not a lot of brains.
1	Chronicler	40 _10th
A souless reboot that pins everything that occurs to peter parker/spider-man in TASM as being connected to one entity: OsCorp. This taken with the whole rewirte of the origin of spider-man (An individual given amazing powers through chance and must come to terms with how to deal with the responsibility saddled with them.) Garfield and Stone are great on screen and the film has the best Stan Lee cameo to date, so there's that.
1	alex9000	31 _7th
Painful and boring.
1	BadFurDay	6 _59th
Haters will say it's a bad reboot, but it's much closer to the source material as the previous trilogy. Sadly, a superhero movie often tends to be capped in quality by how good its villain is, and the lizard dude didn't do much for the movie's quality. At least the whole origin story part was short, which is always a plus when starting a new franchise.
1	Corbad	50 _15th
The characterization in this film is horrendous, beginning with Garfield’s (earnest attempt at an) anarchist science nerd engineer skateboarding cool kid athlete programmer costumer 28 year-old teenager. Add in a lack of real development into Spider-Man and a villain with no convincing reason to want everyone to be a lizard and it’s just a mess.
1	Boxcars	4 _12th
While it's more visually thrilling and approaches the source with a different tone (to middling effect), "The Amazing Spider-Man" retreads material covered by Raimi's original picture, but without the same charm or freshness.
1	Jimmy Suede	90 _93rd
Worthy reboot to Spider-Man. As a huge Spider-Man fan I really liked what they did here. Comic geeky time: Some appreciated updates from the previous franchise: Spidey's humor, mechanical web-shooters and bringing Gwen Stacy in. Just a few quibbles, such as Spidey's too-dark costume and Parker being more of a cool outsider than a picked-on nerd. And, his spider-sense, where is it?
1	nobamba	60 _61st
Rewatch. I liked the acting and the casting all-around, including Sheen and Field. The plot/writing was subpar though. A lot of uncharacteristically dumb decisions or unrealistic happenstances that are immersion-breaking, or were there to sell 3D. I don't like that Peter basically breaks his promise to George immediately. As with Homecoming, how creepy is it that you're hunting a superhuman nemesis and he shows up at your house dating your daughter? Fav scene: Flash trying to be nice.
1	Ametrine	10 _91st
A different take on Spidey's origin, and the version of Parker that most resonates with me, personally. His journey of self discovery is handled beautifully, and Garfield's chemistry with Stone is unmatched in the franchise.
1	Quintonjamin	50 _36th
It starts off rough because I don’t think Garfield is good as Peter pre-spider bite. He’s much better after the bite, but the plot of wanting to turn everyone into lizards is just so bad.
1	cakeu	80 _52nd
i actually love andrew garfield as spiderman sadddddd
1	dogeatmoon	30 _8th
Hey it's the guy from that Facebook movie!

Displaying 1 to 250 of 293 total ratings: Prev | Next

Average Percentile 38.99% from 5875 Ratings