IMDb > The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Amazing Spider-Man
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Amazing Spider-Man More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 116:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 1160 reviews in total 

302 out of 402 people found the following review useful:

If the studio doesn't care, why should I?

1/10
Author: Ryan Tatara from United States
11 July 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

No one involved with this movie cared about making a good movie. Because they don't need to. The Spiderman movies will make money no matter good or bad they are. But that doesn't mean they should not try to. Why did this movie get made? Simple, Sam Raimi wasn't given enough time to make a fourth spider-man film so he quit, and the fans wanted to see the lizard on screen. This movie wasn't made for any other reason.

First off, Peter Parker doesn't have a goal in this movie. At first its to find out what happened to his parents, which isn't explained in this movie. After half an hour he now tries to control his new powers, in scenes that don't help the audience. In the original spider-man, Peter learned about his powers in a controlled environment, he didn't beat up innocent people on a subway train. It's nice to know no one on that train reported that a man beat up five people while climbing walls. But Peter learning his powers can't be an entire focus in the movie, so we kill Uncle Ben. This time it doesn't work because the only reason Peter let the criminal get away was because Peter couldn't get a chocolate milk. To get so upset that he couldn't afford a chocolate milk that he would let a robber get away with the stores money is a contrivance in every way. So for about ten minutes Peters new goal is to bring uncle Ben's murderer to justice, let the police can't link all these look alike criminals spider-man does capture with the man who did kill peters uncle. After a while he just stops doing this, with no reason! And there is still about an hour left, so what are we going to do now? How about introduce that main villain you've been promising us? The Lizard is horribly written in every scene he's in. Why does he go to so much trouble to knock cars off of a bridge just to tell one guy (who is never seen afterwords) that their vaccine isn't ready yet? Because we needed another action scene. After that they bring up that the daily bugle wants pictures of the lizard, a point that doesn't amount to anything, except the lizard finding out who spider-man is. For someone as smart as Peter Parker has been set up to be it was really stupid for him to put his name on the camera he was using to take pictures of the lizard.

The climax doesn't work for 2 reasons. The first being this is the same climax we've seen in about four other superhero movies. The second one being there are no stakes. Only half of Manhattan would be infected 8 minutes after the lizard started his chemical missile, decreasing the people at risk greatly. Also THERE'S A CURE FOR THIS!! You know, the thing Gwen has been working on for the past 6 minutes? Whoever gets infected can just get the cure shot into them afterwords, and as of right now there are only 10 people infected, so why waster your time trying to put the cure into the missile that will stretch half of Manhattan and only effect 10 people?!

Gwen Stacy's dad dies and tells Peter to leave Gwen out of this, and proceeds to still date Gwen. What a great way to respect someone who died protecting people! Don't watch this movie, don't waste your time with this movie, even Spiderman 3 was better than this, so just watch the Sam Raimi trilogy, at least those movies had effort put into them.

Was the above review useful to you?

470 out of 763 people found the following review useful:

The Weak Spiderman

3/10
Author: Abhisar Sarmandal from India
29 June 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I've been a fan of Spiderman since childhood. In fact, he has been my favorite superhero. I liked Spiderman 1, 2 and 3; watched Spiderman 3 twice, despite many reviewers bashing it.

So it's natural I was waiting eagerly for The Amazing Spiderman. I was more eager because this movie was rebooting the Spiderman franchise with new cast that included Indian actor, Irfan Khan and it was getting released in India before US! Unfortunately, it turned out to be a big disappointment. It was like they didn't make a Spiderman movie, but a caricature-remake or a spoof of it. Bad script, confused and weak characters, bad direction and bad editing are some of the major flaws. Story was too bland, no spice, no excitement.

The important scenes where Peter gets bitten or hones his skills or makes his suit have been hurried and short, while the irrelevant scenes have been dragged.

Spiderman gets beaten, defeated, injured repeatedly. In fact, the audience was laughing hard on the repeated scenes of him coming home all thrashed and bruised and his aunt talking to him about it. He keeps removing his mask for just anybody and that's not very Spiderman-like.

Most action scenes were non-thrilling. In a scene where Spiderman rescues a boy from a falling and burning car, he wastes almost 5 minutes trying to convince Jack (the boy) to be brave, climb up and hold his hand. He even gives the boy his mask, but the boy doesn't follow him. So in the end he has to throw his spider-thread to pull Jack up. He could have done that already and spared us of that boredom.

It was just an example. Most encounters between the lizard-man and Spiderman were equally boring, dragged and nonsensical.

There were a lot of loose ends and missing links in the story. Like the story of Peter's parents was never shown, but the characters kept mentioning it. Dr. Ratha talks about some Mr. Osbourne, but neither the man nor his story was shown. Maybe they're keeping it for the sequel, but the confusion totally spoiled this movie. A lot of inconsistencies were there too. Sometimes things stick to Peter's hands and break by little force, sometimes they don't.

The romance between Peter/Spiderman and Gwen looked lukewarm and forced. The scene where the burglar kills Peter's uncle looked awkward and disconnected like many other scenes.

Andrew Garfield didn't look much convincing either as nerdy Peter Parker or as Spiderman. He was good in The Social Network but a disappointment in this movie. In many body-close-up shots he was bending forward apparently to hide his penis-line from showing in the tight-suit. That made the already weak Spiderman look even weaker. Since when have Hollywood actors become this bashful?

Irfan Khan appeared in just 3 short scenes. He was more like an extra. But the audience welcomed him with a bout of whistling!

Everyone seemed to be waiting anxiously for the movie to end, which ends after further boring you for some time after the defeat of the villain. So much I wish, they had made Spiderman 4 with Tobey Maguire instead of this disaster.

I might as well watch Rajnikant's Robot now…

Was the above review useful to you?

344 out of 529 people found the following review useful:

The Amazingly Unnecessary Spider-man

5/10
Author: ben_horror from Ireland
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

299 out of 472 people found the following review useful:

The worst Spider-Man yet...

1/10
Author: christhebodishot from Big City USA
4 July 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

After the last film, I was hard pressed to think that this one could be worse. Well, sure enough it is.

Warning, spoilers ahead.

The reasons that this film isn't good are simple: Most of the action scenes, take place at night- and are visually uninteresting as the CGI and night sky don't make good bedfellows. There is one action scene at day in which you can actually see what's going on, and its in a high school that clearly isn't anywhere within a three mile radius of New York.

We all understand how they shoot interiors in Culver City.. But the last spiderman films seamlessly blended shoots from Chicago, New York, Los Angeles without the audience ever noticing. This film does not, in fact the only attempt to make the high school look like New York is a lame sign.

This film's story has been done before, you've seen it before and with the exception of the Osbournes and the color of the love interests hair, there is not much new to this story.

Dennis Leary is great, as is Martin Sheen but they're both killed off. Martin Sheen is killed off in the beginning of this boring movie, making it more painful as he was one of the only reliefs.

Aunt May is written so poorly, that she has nothing to do in this movie. She sits at home and watches TV and screams at Peter when she sees him. Not exactly a challenging role for the great Sally Field.

There was little care that went into the quality of this film, and the attempts at making it dark are just flat out Corny such as the cannibal rat, which is pure comedy and comes out of nowhere to 'shock' the audience.

There seems to be no conflict between Peter and his girlfriend at the end of the story, which one would logically want to assume that she holds out some contempt for spiderman as Harry did in the original spiderman after Spiderman played a hand in his death. Spiderman did play a hand in the Captain's death, yet the daughter doesn't seem to mind that Peter was there when he was murdered.

This film had great visual effects, obscured by the night time setting and slow down camera techniques. Other than that, it's a music video and it pulls NO surprises. You have already seen this film if you've seen the extended trailer, or the 2002 Green Goblin movie.

The chemistry between the two leads is lame, with Andrew Garfield who is wonderful in other films and stage productions giving a few moments of over-acting that take away Peter's humanity and spell the word HAM with it. Also, they appear to be improvising in some of their scenes, the result is two young, MEGA-RICH people trying to imagine what blue- collared kids from Queen's social customs would be like, and let me tell you they FAIL in a telling and Inauthentic way.

This movie does not have you believe in the setting or characters at all. It is just ridiculous.

Was the above review useful to you?

170 out of 242 people found the following review useful:

Spiderbland

1/10
Author: cultfilmfreaksdotcom from Orange County, CA
3 July 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In one scene, right after a spider in the Oscorp Laboratories bites Peter Parker: he falls asleep in a subway only to be awakened by a random loser who (for some strange reason) places a beer bottle on Parker's head. A drop of water from the bottle rolls down onto Peter's face, causing him to fling to the top of the car and stick to the ceiling – like a spider.

Over a dozen people witness this spectacular feat... and what happens next? A lady gets miffed because some of the beer spilled on her clothes. That particular reaction sums up how amazing the entire film is. After fully realizing his powers and using them to skateboard with furious bravado outside his high school, Peter Parker (much too) quickly dons the Spidey outfit that seems more like a surfer's wetsuit than a real transformation.

He seeks his uncle's murderer from the supposedly pivotal scene lacking the tragic fate of the protagonist's mentor in Sam Raimi's version. This doesn't perpetuate Parker into a vengeful vigilante misusing his powers, but gives him reason to fly around wielding his skills that actor Andrew Garfield never seems in any particular awe about. The SOCIAL NETWORK star, resembling Anthony Perkins had he become a melancholy hipster, doesn't give Peter Parker the underdog value Tobey Maguire successfully conveyed – but that's the scripts fault. Parker's not a nerd or even an outcast; having lost his parents for mysterious reasons, he's simply not a happy camper.

Other than the rushed changeling into the titular superhero, there's hardly any character arc for the good guy or the villain. Osco's resident genius Dr. Curt Conner's transforms into The Lizard so quick, running amok New York City like a raptor on steroids, there's not much reason, or worthy motivation, for his actions.

But (all) this lack of purpose fits a movie that, when not wallowing in romantic melodrama between Parker and girlfriend Gwen Stacey… whose dad is a hard-nosed cop and a weak replacement for a much-needed human antagonist like J. Jonah Jameson… doesn't live up to the original film or the comic books that at least, for better or worse, had a good time.

For More Reviews: www.cultfilmfreaks.com

Was the above review useful to you?

245 out of 398 people found the following review useful:

The Amazing Spider-Man Movie Has Already Been Made

3/10
Author: thesar-2 from United States
4 July 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I don't have an argument that Spider-Man's origin story didn't need to be remade for I've seen plenty of very decent to mediocre reboots before. But, what makes this a worthless remake was that it backtracked on all that was good before it.

Heart, soul, good soundtrack, excellent score, acting, chemistry, heroism, humor and quotable dialogue were present in the original Spider-Man movies – and yeah, even #3. This movie lacked ALL of those. Heck, it even deleted one of the main characters and often hilarious: J. Johan Jameson. Shame.

I was even willing to over look the obvious first hour or so that inevitably retold the same old story of pansy Parker, a love interest, the bullies, the Aunt & Uncle, the spider bite, the transformation and the first try-outs. Without anyone (and I guess me now) spoiling that, we all knew that was coming. But, what I didn't foresee was how blah it all was going to be. How boring and trite.

And please…PLEASE… do not let the advertisements fool you into filling a seat for a movie you've seen before: "The Untold Story" was about as revealing as finding out about Ellen Ripley's all-but irrelevant daughter in the director's cut of Aliens.

What the movie is trying to tell us is that Spider-Man is a hero, that he loves Gwen Stacy and that, despite how great the Hulk looked in The Avengers, a giant lizard man can look real on screen using 1996's technology. No apologies: I didn't buy any one of these things the script displayed. In fact, it showed so much and yet, so much felt left out. So many story lines began and either faded or we're given half-ass explanations.

Don't get me wrong; I didn't full-on hate on The Amazing Spider-Man. Of the approximately 20 minutes (of 136) of screen time Spidey was on the screen, he looked…decent, albeit the shots still looked like deleted scenes from the previous series. And even though Tobey Maguire spun webs around Andrew Garfield's Parker, he still did a good job. I will even give it to both the script and Garfield: Spider-Man's signature sarcasm was funnier this time around.

Is it redundant to give the synopsis since I already reviewed the 10-year-old original? Yes, except this time around instead of a green bad guy from Oscorp being human, this one had a green bad guy from Oscorp being a laughable CGI Godzilla offspring. Oh, and as much as I love Emma Stone, her character, Gwen Stacy, first introduced in Spider-Man 3, was so lifeless, you'd have to miss Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane.

I simply cannot recommend this movie. Again, of the 136 minutes, 40 were good, but that did not outweigh the bad-3-D effects or 96 other slow-paced, unoriginal and uninspiring minutes.

Was the above review useful to you?

172 out of 253 people found the following review useful:

A pathetic movie

3/10
Author: legioner8800
4 July 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Probably it's because I've seen the Tobey-Man and this is the reason I give this movie such a low score. I wanted to learn more about Peter's parents, but did not. "They were scientists." So what? That's not even 5% of what I needed to find out. Tobey-Man was on par with emotions, stunts and discovering the character. Here your uncle dies and what you see is 2 mins of drama about him. They really did not expand the characters and that led to my disappointment.

This really isn't the spider-man I wanted to see (full of questioning, thoughts and hardship). This guy was crying one minute and kissing the girl in another. Did I even mention that the suit did not fully fit him? Did I mention that Peter became a super scientists in 5 mins after he start reading 2 books and a couple of documents that do not make sense? Since when kids study genetics in school so deeply?

Tobey-Man's story deeper and more interesting. You could see the bright side of having super powers and the dark of constantly having the responsibility to hide your identity and take care of the closest. The new Spidey did little effort to hide his id. I could actually say that he was waving his mask the entire movie...

If you were happy with Tobey-man, stick with him!

Was the above review useful to you?

187 out of 304 people found the following review useful:

The dreadfully deranged spidey !

4/10
Author: aniket sule from India
30 June 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It has been 24 hrs (app.) since i have seen the movie and i am still desperately trying to understand what was the target market in the mind of the director ? The movie was too complicated for children and was strange for adults like me.

Despite of Emma stone and Sally field being totally wasted in their respective roles. I still thought that Andrew garfield would do a good job in the movie or at least justice to the spider-man character but he too seemed lost in the school (He is only 28years old) Why did peter and gwen need to go to a school school which occupies half of Manhattan ? as if that is possible in NY.

Dr. Connors seemed deranged more than seeming like a genius. when you see a Marvel movie you expect the villain to display a lot of shades of grey and here we had an antagonist who seemed to be obsessed with improving mankind of all its weakness.

our dear Dr. Norman Osborn seemed to be dying in the movie (God save the green goblin, what are we going to do in the sequel if the green goblin is not saved !!!) Irfan khan was visiting from the sets of MIB4 or maybe 5 he seems better suited there and not as a scientist dressed in all black.

Peter's parents have a small side track which is left unexplained that it leaves viewers perplexed as to why did we just waste 20 minutes talking about them !!! A dying police chief applauds spider-man for his service to NY and tells him that he is meant for great things but also makes him promise to stay away from his daughter. The man just gave his life for the country but seems to be an overprotective father.

I had gone in thinking that i would see a movie as amazing as The Avengers but clearly i was disappointed. Sam Raimi was better and we want him back.

Was the above review useful to you?

135 out of 206 people found the following review useful:

Are you kidding me?

3/10
Author: philipjkite from United Kingdom
3 July 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I don't like to be the downer on this movie, but I've just got back from watching it at my local cinema and I've already forgotten about it! I was expecting good things, 215 million spent on the movie, Emma Stone (big fan), Andrew Garfield (up and coming, great in Social Network) and Martin Sheen as a co-star, come on it should have been better.

I got lost in the lack of a plot, it felt like it all happened over a day or two, the acting was limited, even Emma Stone only seemed to convince in a few scenes. At times it was as if I'd gone back in time and was stuck watching the Hulk again! please, please, not again! It just seemed so mixed up,there were a few, and when I say a few, I mean more than two! decent scenes! a couple of jokes thrown in, but then it was back to mediocre, what the heck happened to Denis Leary, after Rescue Me, you'd think that this guy could act now.

For me, and this is only my humble opinion, it was a bid disappointment that made me wonder why I went in the first place. Once again Hollywood got me, with their big budget advertising machine.

But maybe it's me, IMDb's never wrong is it? and maybe, just maybe, as I didn't watch it in 3D and could see the movie this time, I'm wrong!

Was the above review useful to you?

241 out of 420 people found the following review useful:

Webb Not Strong Enough

6/10
Author: smallasianman from Manchester
19 June 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The Amazing Spider-Man begins with Peter Parker in high school. Though an amateur photographer, Peter's main interest is science - and he bluffs his way into an audience with his deceased father's ex-partner Dr Curt Connors. After impressing Connors with his knowledge of cross- species genetics, Peter enters a classified area and is bitten by a mutated spider. As his powers and secret identity develop, so too does his relationship with Connors protégé, and Parker's classmate, Gwen Stacey. But when the desperate Connors attempts to fight his personal weaknesses using the same untested method, he undergoes a more disastrous transformation into "The Lizard", a creature with a twisted view of how best to 'cure' humanity.

The Amazing Spider-Man's origin story is undoubtedly an improvement on Raimi's Spider-Man, a decade prior. The characterisation is a lot more realistic, which makes it easier for the audience to feel Parker's teenage pain, awkwardness and ultimate escapism when he dons the guise of Spider-Man. Emma Stone's Gwen Stacey is also a welcome replacement for Mary-Jane, who's sole purpose in Raimi's films was either to moan or scream. Stacey by contrast, is an intelligent character in her own right, who doesn't shy away from getting her hands dirty when Spider- Man's in trouble. Rhys Ifans portrayal of Curt Connors has the same Jekyllian vulnerability seen in Mark Ruffallo's Bruce Banner earlier this year, although his motives are distorted somewhat as the film progresses.

However, such interesting character development unfortunately does not hold together perfectly with the action. Of course, Spider-Man is foremost a movie that has to entertain; yet the cocky web-slinging CGI hero seems too unlike Garfield's brooding Peter Parker. The quality of the special effects is largely inconsistent, with POV scenes of Spider- Man diving around the city impressing greatly, whilst his actual battles with The Lizard are considerably less ambitious. The weighty retelling of Parker's familiar back-story also means that during the dénouement several large plot points, which could have expanded the action, are left undeveloped – and so the ending is a little too simple and unsatisfactory.

Webb has successfully addressed the new demand for superhero movies to be deeper and more human; yet he is not a director adept at providing big-budget action to an audience in the same way as Joss Whedon or Christopher Nolan. The Amazing Spider-Man is therefore the sum of two films, a satisfactory coming-of-age movie and an unchallenging action film. Unfortunately, Webb is not strong enough to convincingly hold the two together.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 116:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history