The Amazing Spider-Man - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

The Amazing Spider-Man Reviews

Page 1 of 1230
Super Reviewer
July 4, 2012
A clumsy copy of that Spider Man movie released only a decade before, taking an infinitude of time to retell the same thing. The 3D (original, not converted) is so useless and badly done while the story is ruined by pathetic motivations from both the hero and the cartoonish villain.
Super Reviewer
½ September 5, 2012
The AMAZING Spider-Man? well not quite. With the Raimi franchise finished only five years ago in 2007 did we need a reboot of this super hero? in my opinion no we didn't and this film hasn't really changed my mind.

One can't deny the impressive new visuals and ideas for this new feature, Spider-Man does look good with new state of the art CGI effects and Spidey POV as he streaks across the night sky. The suit is pretty much the same albeit for some minor cosmetic differences, but Spider-Man's new moves during fights and skyscraper swinging are much more elaborate sexier and closer to the classic motions we all know and love from the comics and those top notch Capcom 2D fighters even!

That said I still see no point in this film other than to show off what I just pointed out. Yes Spider-Man looks much slicker as he should five years after the last film but other than that there is nothing new here. I might add its only Spider-Man that looks good in this film, Lizard looks pretty ropy if you ask me. Close ups of his face and eyes especially are pretty nice but when the action kicks in he looks like a dodgy Godzilla with a weird facial design. Obviously trying to look somewhat like the actor Ifans but it doesn't work too well.

The plot for Lizard is also kinda loose too really. He wants to turn everyone into lizards hmmm. Wouldn't that kinda make him no longer special? if everyone was the same as him he wouldn't be the strongest being around anymore, more importantly...why do this? On another note, again I realise this is a comicbook adaptation but isn't this plot like something out of a kids Saturday morning cartoon? to be more precise...a TMNT cartoon.

A lot of the film is so darn stupid also, OK its a comicbook adaptation but it just seems they have tried too hard, plus trying to squeeze too much into the one film. The origins segments seem to fly past and before you know it he's Spider-Man and everyone is calling him that! There isn't much exploration of his suit creation, he just makes it...just like that! and things happen that are just too daft to make any sense.

Parker's first use of his spider powers on the subway home is one example. some guy does something completely pointless whilst Parker sleeps (balances a beer bottle on his forehead?? duh?). He awakes startled and leaps onto the carriage roof, sticking there, he jumps down and accidentally rips off a woman's top with his sticky fingers. Straight away some guys completely forget about the amazing feet they just saw and try to beat him you would do of course.

Then of course there is all the obligatory high school fluff where Parker does things slightly out of the ordinary yet no one ever seems to question it. Yes I know its all part of the comicbook lore and gives the film some funny moments but my god its so cliched and ridiculous.

Personally I see nothing here that beats the Raimi franchise by any great lengths. Naturally the effects are much better but cast wise I actually prefer Maguire (although Dunst was terrible). Garfield was quite annoying, I found, and didn't have any of the emotion. Probably down to the fact Maguire is a good actor and Garfield is not...whoever he is.

I just feel this is all so ridiculous, they could do this every other year, just remake the same film with a pretty new cast and sparkly new effects, slap some gloss on the top and voila! yet another brand new origins remake. The thing is everyone will rush to see it too! (yes I see the irony in myself having seen it but I have a good reason for this...I'm a hypocrite). Its the same as before in a shiny new wrapper people! Hollywood must be rubbing their hands with glee.

With the amount of super hero films made and being made there really is no need for remakes/reboots of franchises that aren't very old. There are plenty of really good super hero characters out there Hollywood, lets see some of them get an adaptation, stop churning out the same spiel over and over.

Purely by the numbers cookie cutter film making in every sense and offers nothing new. There are some nice fight sequences between Spidey and Lizard yes but that's it, I get the impression that's the only reason they made this, to show off cool fights between cool comicbook characters. Cast aside the only differences are the change in villain and the visuals are prettier, everything else is as you would expect so where's the fun?
Super Reviewer
½ January 25, 2009
Not so amazing, after all. Watchable, but not completely enjoyable.
Super Reviewer
½ September 11, 2011
Giving a film a darker tone does not necessarily mean it is going to make it better, but this film does it properly. Keeping in mind that there is a definitely recognition of scenes missing for details, Where do I begin? "Spider-Man" has been attempted in the past, but never have I felt this much REAL emotion from a superhero film. The Sam Raimi trilogy will always stand as the benchmark of modern-day superhero flicks, giving these new Spidey films something to really strive for. In this film, the depth of the characters is phenomenal, the never-before-seen backstory is told beautifully (although not explored enough), the realization scenes before the transformation is great, and the film is structured so much better this time around. The deaths actually made me cry, because they took their time and spent the right amount of screen time to show the emotions that should be felt by the audience. The CG work is better than I expected, although they could have tweaked a few details. I don't really have any complaints about this film. One of the most powerful portions of the film is the chemistry between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey, and the character of Dr. Curt Connors/The Lizard was portrayed beautifully by Rhys Ifans. Forget Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield owns Spider-Man, and "The Amazing Spider-Man" may not be worthy of the title "Amazing," but it sure is fantastic!
Super Reviewer
April 15, 2014
Spider-Man was by no means a film that needed rebooting. But The Amazing Spider-Man is about on par in terms of quality; it's just a different interpretation. Director Marc Webb injects this film with his indie romantic sensibility, creating a film that is first and foremost about relationships. Andrew Garfield is a great Peter Parker and a better Spider-Man, and you couldn't find a better Gwen Stacy than Emma Stone. This origin story has just as much intelligence as it does special effects.
Samuel Riley
Super Reviewer
½ July 15, 2012
A far more loyal film towards the comics than Sam Raimi's trilogy. However, it doesn't mean that this film is better than Raimi's. Even though Tim Burton's Batman films were more faithful to the comics, Christopher Nolan's trilogy is widely considered the better out of the two. And in this case, even though I liked this new one, I grew up with Sam Raimi's trilogy and to have a reboot come about so shortly is more than not called for. Even though Andrew Garfield gave a strong performance, I just still prefer Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man. While the Lizard is an impressive villan with Rhys Ifans' superb portrayal, it ultimately doesn't top Alfred Molina's Dr Octopus or Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin. Overall, this reboot doesn't live up to being "Amazing" as its title implies, but it's still Spider-Man and even though it may not top Sam Raimi's trilogy, this introduces another way of watching the web slinger on the big screen.
P.S. Because of J.K Simmons' brilliant portrayal as J.Jonah Jameson in the trilogy, if they ever bring that character into this reboot franchise, I feel no one else can really top his performance, so they'd better have Simmons or no one for that role.
Super Reviewer
½ April 13, 2013
The only thing "Amazing" about this Spiderman Film is that the script made it to the screen. Dreadful.
Super Reviewer
February 15, 2011
Garfield and Stone are great! But I think I am getting too old to enjoy the comics made movies now.
Super Reviewer
August 13, 2008
I'm not sure we really needed this re-boot so soon after the other films! It seems to stay faithful to a lot of the ideas behind Spiderman and therefore some scenes are just like the first film, which makes me think why not try something totally different?! It's a good film though and the action and SFX are very good, overall I think it missed some of the charm of the recent first film.
Super Reviewer
½ February 7, 2011
Andrew Garfield is my hero. In fact, he's my super-hero.
Super Reviewer
March 14, 2013
The Amazing Spider-Man, an apparently pointless reboot, is surprisingly engaging, due to a intelligent script and a crackerjack cast. Better acted than the previous three films, and with deeper, more three dimensional characters, it is more satisfying in its 'quieter' moments (that is, non-CG action scenes) than any of the Toby Maguire films. Where it falls down is in the action and CG scenes in the climax, which look fake and cartoon-ish, and worse, are cliched and perfunctory from a story point of view.

Andrew Garfield is perfectly cast as the webbed wonder and brings more humor and vulnerability to the role than Toby, who let it be said, was a perfectly good fit for the role as well. Wonderful Emma Stone is a stellar comedy actress, and always sexy, has great chemistry with Garfield, and makes consistently interesting choices as love interest Gwen. Sally Field and Martin Sheen as Peter Parker's uncle and aunt bring gravitas and heart to these normally thankless roles and give better and more interesting performances here than they have in years. (Yes, I think Sally is better here as Aunt May than she was as Mrs. Lincoln). Edgy, dangerous comedian Dennis Leary as Gwen's hard ass New York cop dad Captain Stacy was a wonderful stroke of casting.

The film is weaker in the realms of bad guy portrayal and action scenes. Welsh character actor Rhys Ifans, usually interesting in whatever he does, brings very little to the part of Dr. Connors /The Lizard. I understand he was responsible for the downfall of Peter's dad, but I couldn't quite get a handle on what was his deal exactly. The morphing effects turning Connors into a giant lizard look absurdly CG and silly, and Ifan's voice and demeanor during his time as Lizard is unconvincing. This is not helped by the script, which blames Lizard's evil ways on his inability to adjust to having a severed arm. He becomes a genetic lizard/human hybrid so he can grow back his limb? Then for no reason that I really understood he infects all of New York with the lizard DNA for which Spiderman must find an antidote.

There is a fairly thrilling CG sequence with cars dangling off the bridge by Spidey's webs, and Spidey's rescue of a kid from one of the dangling cars. But that scene is so preposterous, it doesn't really get my heart beating fast,though is nonetheless fun. All the CG stuff has the kind of fake glossiness and sheen that takes me out of feeling that any of this is real. Still director Marc Webb seems to have a way with actors, and the move works when the actors get to show their stuff. When the computer and special effects take over, then the film is like a bad video game.

If you want to blown away by realism or gripped by an evil sinister master plot, look elsewhere. The Amazing Spider-Man is worth a look to see some charismatic and talented actors at the top of their games and truly feeling the angst of Peter Parker himself, losing parents in school, being bullied and struggling with finding his place in the world, equipped with super-strength and the ability to shoot webs out of his wrists. Still the movie's way too long. Still though,it has lots of good stuff. Now I won't be reluctant to pick up the sequel to the prequel, or whatever the next film might be.
Super Reviewer
½ July 4, 2012
I rewatched this on Blu-Ray the other day, and it plays much better the second time around, and holds up good. This is my original review, and I feel the same, but found myself liking it more. Probably because I saw it the first time in the Paris Theater, which is awesome cause of the price, but the quality is not that great. Blu Ray really allows this movie to shine, and look forward to eventually checking it out in 3D. "Amazing Spider-Man" is a complete reboot to the "Spider-Man"series. New actors, new director, and a new take on the story. This is actually much closer to the original source material as opposed to the Raimi trilogy. Here Peter Parker is played by Andrew Garfield("Social Network") and I gotta say, he does a pretty good job. I was worried that I would be thinking of Maguire's Parker the whole time, but Garfield did great at helping me forget. Parker isn't exactly a nerd, as he is a skateboarding smart ass here. It's a lot like when a new James Bond comes along, and they put a new spin on the same character. This is an origin story, and it takes a good while before he becomes Spider-Man. I joked the movie should have been called "The Curious Case of Peter Parker". He gets bitten, stuff happens with uncle Ben, he has relationship woes with Gwen Stacy(Emma Stone) this time, and battles a new foe in The Lizard(Rhys Ifans). Familiar stuff, but told in a new fresh way. What this movie did best was set up for future movies. This is good, not great, but honestly, I'm very excited to see where the go with the story. I understand with rebooting, you have to retell the origin, and that's fine(they did a decent job). But they accomplished the main goal by getting people engaged, and curious to see whats next. I liked the story, could have used more action, but I know in the sequels to come so will the action. Good start to what I hope to be a great new series of Spidey films.
Super Reviewer
June 9, 2012
The Amazing Spider-Man is a fantastic reboot of an already great film. It borrows heavily from Sam Raimi's Spider-Man but proves to be the better film with more in-depth character development and action. However, the flim does suffer from an underdeveloped villain with motives that are not fleshed out enough. The film also has odd cuts and pacing, but despite these issues, The Amazing Spider-Man lives up to the hype and promises an exciting new franchise.
michael e.
Super Reviewer
½ September 22, 2012
It follows the comic much closer unlike the Tobey Maguire film which did take quite a few creative liberties here and there. I think all of the actors all did great serious performances unlike the other films where they did okay but a lot of the delivery was very cheesy and felt kind of forced at points. Andrew Garfield is just perfect as Peter Parker and Rhys Ifans is fantastic as Dr. Curt Connors which was a throwaway in the original 3 films and never really became the Lizard which really pissed me off. I think Martin sheen did a phenomenal job as he usually does, and Emma Stone is very good as Gwen Stacy and makes her more independent and an actual smart woman unlike almost any other superhero film where the girl is just mainly the Damsal in distress. Also the film I think gets down Spiderman much better than the Maguire films did, they made this Spiderman serious but very funny while the Tobey one was mainly kind of comedic and didn't really play it all that serious until the 3rd film. My only real nitpick with this film is the design of the Lizard. Me and my sister agree that we both think that the Lizard looks more like a big slimy wrestler with a tail and too human looking and not enough like an actual reptile like he did in the comics.
Super Reviewer
½ July 13, 2010
The newest adaptation from Marvel of the Spiderman franchise, this film doesn't live up to the hype of being "amazing". We all know and discuss readily the fact that this film was made too soon after the end of the original Raimi series. The first of this new series of films does not deviate much from the original storyline. Unlike the first film, it's less about Spiderman's transformation and Green Goblin's ascension to serious baddie and self-involved psycho, and more about the everyday life of Peter Parker as a high school student. The original series of comics was about a high school student balancing the different parts of his life while being a superhero. This film feels much less dramatic than the original first film of the Spiderman saga. There was a definite lean towards humor, camp, and showing the main character to be fresh faced and witty. Garfield was perfect for the newfound role of Peter Parker/Spiderman, because he certainly can pull off being a smart ass while also being charismatic and sweet tempered. Emma Stone was quietly effectual as Gwen Stacy, and Rhys Ifans was just right as an insane villain, but picking big name stars Martin Sheen and Sally Field as old folks who are simple and loving makes no sense and is distracting. What I also found to be off putting was Spiderman's transformation itself. Parker doesn't seem to be surprised about his newfound powers, and the actual transformation doesn't seem any more painful or strange as a pinprick to the finger. The original had a long scene with a scientific looking diagram of the new DNA strand. Instead we get sidesplitting slapstick humor, which resurfaces time and again. The rest of the film suffers from this decision, because there isn't a lot of action, there's no dramatic tension, and when there is any big moments it's a variation of the original films. The action is not nail biting, but does include The Lizard, a villain who hasn't been seen in the Raimi series, and who comes off as being sincere and over the top. He is the best villain possible for this new series because both he and Parker are going through transformations into animal hybrids, and that issue also links to Parker's past and an intricate plot which will be further explained in the next film.
Super Reviewer
½ April 7, 2009
A fresh face cast, sleek special effects and a slightly different, more realistic plot, save this from becoming mere fodder for the masses.
Super Reviewer
August 29, 2011
Emma Stone
Solid Acting
Emma Stone
Emma Stone
Emma Stone
Super Reviewer
½ November 6, 2011
A well-chosen cast and sure-handed direction allow The Amazing Spider-Man to thrill.

(+) I like when the female character isn't weak.
(+) this movie shows lil' bit about marvel world

(-) I hate when he shows identity to everyone. even tony stark can keep his identity until the end of the movie.
Super Reviewer
½ February 28, 2011
When I first heard about this movie, I was intrigued, but hesitant. I mean, it came out only a decade after the first in the Raimi trilogy, and 5 years after that trilogy ended. Plus, I had reservations about the aptly named director Marc Webb, mostly due to his previous film being the delightful rom-dramedy (500) Days of Summer.

Still, I decided to give this one a chance, because it's better to reboot things and try to start fresh as opposed to trying to rebuild on where the other films left off. As such, this is a conflicted movie, and it's obvious how much they try to distance themselves from the others, and, while they succeed here and there, the film doesn't live up to it's title, nor does it quite forge it's own unique territory.

That said, I found it to be really good, and quite enjoyable. This film can't totally deviate from what the others did, but it does put its own spin on things, suchas having a nice back story involving Peter's parents, which I liked in general, but really liked more because of how they tie it into the rest of the story. Also, as neat as the organic web shooters were, I really liked this take on the character, as he's both edgy and modern, yet still a socially outcast nerd, whose brainy side is actually on display a lot, like, they really do something with it, like having him make his web shooters a la the comics.

Plus, the film does something we've yet to see with a cinematic Spider-man, which is give us the Lizard. It was teased about in the Raimi films, but now we get Dr. Curt Connors/The Lizard in all his scaly glory. It's a pretty well done take on the character, too. Maybe not excellent, but definitely satisfactory.

The film does do a lot of things right, like having great cinematography, terrific music, passable stunts and action, good casting and solid performances, and a nice balance with the tone. It's dark, gritty, yet still playful, fantastical, and pretty funny. Andrew Garfield is a great choice for Peter/Spidey. I liked Tobey, but Andrew seems a bit more believable. He's got some great chemistry with Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, and I liked how they use Gwen, and not MJ, which is more in line with the source material. Stone is good, but it took me a while to get used to seeing her as a blonde, even though that sadly is her natural hair color, despite how awesome she is as a redhead. Sally Field and Martin Sheen prove an enjoyable duo as Peter's aunt and uncle, Denis Leary makes a nice cinematic return as Capt. George Stacy, and Rhys Ifans is quite good as Connors.

The action isn't quite as stunning as it was with the Raimi films, but since there's a sequel, perhaps that will change. I thought they were done decently though. And, unless you want me to just nitpick this to death, about the only real complaint I have is that the pacing felt quite uneven after the first hour.

All in all, a surprisingly decent and passable film, despite its shortcomings. I give it a solid B to a light B+.
Super Reviewer
½ April 25, 2009
"Amazing? I wouldn't go that far. Good? I can agree to that. I ended up watching it a couple times. The second time was full of my Dad ranting on how stupid it was that they remade Spiderman so soon after the other films especially since it's the same F****** story. It's safe to say he didn't like it. He also mentioned that the villain was ridiculously stupid. I have to agree with him there. I didn't like the villain. I liked Rhys, but not so much as what he became. It was cheesy. There are things I liked in this movie that I didn't like in the previous ones. 1. Sally Fields as Aunt May 2. Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben 3. Emma Stone. I guess that's it. I think they would have made the previous films much better than what they were. The story itself wasn't mind blowing and I wasn't as interested in it as I had hoped I would be. I guess I missed Maguire. Garfield just didn't do it for me. I found him to be bland and unimpressing. Don't get me wrong, I like him, I like his acting. I loved him in other films. Spiderman just didn't suit him. No fun intended. Well, maybe a little... So I didn't love it, but it wasn't bad either."
Page 1 of 1230