sign in
register
Watch
Netflix FXNow fuboTV
+9
The Amazing Spider-Man
Netflix FXNow fuboTV
+9
JustWatch
Remove ads

The Amazing Spider-Man

2012
Suspense/Thriller
Fantasy
2h 16m
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)
Directed by:
Marc Webb Marc Webb
Written by:
Stan Lee Stan Lee Steve Kloves Steve Kloves Alvin Sargent Alvin Sargent James Vanderbilt
+3 more
Starring:
Martin Sheen Martin Sheen Embeth Davidtz Embeth Davidtz Denis Leary Denis Leary Rhys Ifans Rhys Ifans Campbell Scott Campbell Scott C. Thomas Howell C. Thomas Howell Sally Field Sally Field Emma Stone Emma Stone Andrew Garfield Andrew Garfield Kelsey Asbille Kelsey Asbille Max Charles Max Charles Hannah Marks Hannah Marks
More
Franchises:
The Amazing Spider-Man, Spider-Man
Genres:
Suspense/Thriller, Fantasy, Action, Adventure
AKA:
The Amazing Spider Man
Country:
USA
Language:
English
imdb More information at IMDb
See title update history
Suggest an edit
Show Less
Your probable score
?

The Amazing Spider-Man

2012
Suspense/Thriller
Fantasy
2h 16m
Your probable score
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer
Avg Percentile 38.99% from 6108 total ratings
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

(6108)
Compact view
clear
Compact view
Show
Sort
billyshearsBillyShears
Rated 03 Jul 2012
50
21st
I would shoot so much webbing on Emma Stone WAKKA WAKKA. The use of Anthony Perkins as Peter Parker was masterful.
Rated 03 Jul 2012
spleenspleen
Rated 21 Oct 2012
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.
Rated 21 Oct 2012
juntakinte99juntakinte99
Rated 20 Aug 2021
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.
Rated 20 Aug 2021
beedubBeeDub
Rated 11 Apr 2016
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.
Rated 11 Apr 2016
markjpMArkjp
Rated 14 Aug 2012
40
15th
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.
Rated 14 Aug 2012
langelundLangelund
Rated 03 Jul 2012
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.
Rated 03 Jul 2012
frederikaFrederikA
Rated 16 Jul 2012
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.
Rated 16 Jul 2012
xakkmasterXakkMaster
Rated 16 Jul 2012
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.
Rated 16 Jul 2012
kasperlKasperL
Rated 30 Jun 2012
50
29th
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?
Rated 30 Jun 2012
thedailynathanTheDailyNathan
Rated 14 Aug 2012
63
21st
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.
Rated 14 Aug 2012
frsfrs
Rated 03 Feb 2013
78
71st
I have no idea how they managed to pull this off.
Rated 03 Feb 2013
hellboy76hellboy76
Rated 10 Nov 2012
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.
Rated 10 Nov 2012
beer94Beer94
Rated 29 Oct 2012
66
55th
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!
Rated 29 Oct 2012
theescapistTheEscapist
Rated 04 Mar 2013
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.
Rated 04 Mar 2013
pickpocketPickpocket
Rated 20 Oct 2012
3
28th
The Lizard's transformation was literally into this: http://i.imgur.com/8VNRw.jpg
Rated 20 Oct 2012
rayRay
Rated 07 Jul 2012
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.
Rated 07 Jul 2012
anomalyAnomaly
Rated 22 Jul 2012
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.
Rated 22 Jul 2012
nearphotisonNearphotison
Rated 07 Jul 2012
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.
Rated 07 Jul 2012
barthalenBarthalen
Rated 16 Jul 2012
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.
Rated 16 Jul 2012
alex_wsAlex WS
Rated 25 Apr 2013
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".
Rated 25 Apr 2013
bownBown
Rated 04 Jul 2012
68
21st
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.
Rated 04 Jul 2012
luna6ixLuna6ix
Rated 25 Aug 2012
82
81st
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?
Rated 25 Aug 2012
jerkyJerky
Rated 16 Nov 2012
60
72nd
What can I say...I enjoyed it!
Rated 16 Nov 2012
matthew_parkinsonMatthew Parkinson
Rated 07 Sep 2013
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.
Rated 07 Sep 2013
mrandersen10mrandersen10
Rated 26 Oct 2012
60
21st
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.
Rated 26 Oct 2012
realmacgyverRealMacgyver
Rated 01 Jul 2014
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?
Rated 01 Jul 2014
ashbyAshby
Rated 11 Oct 2013
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.
Rated 11 Oct 2013
dakota99Dakota99
Rated 16 Aug 2018
6
60th
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.
Rated 16 Aug 2018
adoubleadouble
Rated 29 Nov 2012
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.
Rated 29 Nov 2012
filmfreak88filmfreak88
Rated 31 Jul 2012
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.
Rated 31 Jul 2012
indyatmnINDYATMN
Rated 08 Jul 2012
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
Rated 08 Jul 2012
leonardisLeonardis
Rated 06 Jul 2012
82
39th
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.
Rated 06 Jul 2012
whatismynamewhatismyname
Rated 14 Jul 2014
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.
Rated 14 Jul 2014
fredericg54frederic_g54
Rated 08 Jul 2012
5
20th
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!
Rated 08 Jul 2012
steelSteel
Rated 07 Jun 2014
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.
Rated 07 Jun 2014
bofbof
Rated 13 Aug 2014
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.
Rated 13 Aug 2014
okkervilOkkervil
Rated 09 Jul 2012
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.
Rated 09 Jul 2012
nobodyrobotsnobodyrobots
Rated 30 Oct 2012
35
2nd
I couldn't figure out what the hell was wrong with Peter Parker in this movie.
Rated 30 Oct 2012
kramyessevKramYessev
Rated 04 Jul 2012
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.
Rated 04 Jul 2012
cinemaasiaCinema_Asia
Rated 02 Jul 2012
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.
Rated 02 Jul 2012
teckgeckoteckgecko
Rated 08 Sep 2012
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.
Rated 08 Sep 2012
andaybandayb
Rated 14 Jul 2012
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.
Rated 14 Jul 2012
mjvmoviemanMJVmovieMan
Rated 15 Jul 2012
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.
Rated 15 Jul 2012
lrampartllrampartl
Rated 10 Jul 2017
43
19th
Like half the fucking city knows who Spider-Man is
Rated 10 Jul 2017
silverSilver
Rated 06 Jul 2012
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.
Rated 06 Jul 2012
mrbitternessMrBitterness
Rated 17 Aug 2012
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.
Rated 17 Aug 2012
baggerBagger
Rated 12 Jul 2012
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.
Rated 12 Jul 2012
mattorama12mattorama12
Rated 15 Jul 2012
56
25th
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.
Rated 15 Jul 2012
manwhonosemanwhonose
Rated 19 Aug 2018
89
29th
The undeniably talented cast is short-changed by a formulaic, paint-by-numbers script, which is overly cynical and ultimately pointless.
Rated 19 Aug 2018
antidood1antidood1
Rated 24 Apr 2014
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.
Rated 24 Apr 2014
jimmy_suedeJimmy Suede
Rated 08 Jan 2017
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?
Rated 08 Jan 2017
thedicemanTheDiceman
Rated 13 Jul 2012
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.
Rated 13 Jul 2012
noisebloomnoisebloom
Rated 17 Jan 2021
46
6th
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.
Rated 17 Jan 2021
luthar15luthar15
Rated 28 Oct 2012
12
40th
quintonjaminQuintonjamin
Rated 06 Jun 2022
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.
Rated 06 Jun 2022
nutcrackrnutcrackr
Rated 03 Nov 2012
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.
Rated 03 Nov 2012
cinesexualcinesexual
Rated 26 Oct 2012
67
49th
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.
Rated 26 Oct 2012
frankhowleyFrankHowley
Rated 26 Oct 2012
30
3rd
Overlong, miserable and completely unnecessary. Sam Raimi's first two Spider-Man films are too good to ever displace.
Rated 26 Oct 2012
ytadelYtadel
Rated 07 Jul 2012
4
44th
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?
Rated 07 Jul 2012
therealj_roTheRealJ-Ro
Rated 11 Jul 2012
75
56th
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!
Rated 11 Jul 2012
jazzalohaJazzaloha
Rated 16 Feb 2013
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)
Rated 16 Feb 2013
clark_novaClark Nova
Rated 21 Sep 2013
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!
Rated 21 Sep 2013
dst7175dst7175
Rated 18 Jul 2012
55
42nd
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.
Rated 18 Jul 2012
ametrineAmetrine
Rated 10 May 2021
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.
Rated 10 May 2021
vandelay1Vandelay1
Rated 27 Mar 2017
50
51st
okay movie
Rated 27 Mar 2017
sifter132sifter132
Rated 06 Aug 2013
60
11th
Unnecessary remake...
Rated 06 Aug 2013
space_popeSpace Pope
Rated 21 Apr 2014
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.
Rated 21 Apr 2014
wwallce4prezWWallce4prez
Rated 29 Dec 2012
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.
Rated 29 Dec 2012
talonmalontalonmalon
Rated 13 Jul 2013
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.
Rated 13 Jul 2013
evranaevrana
Rated 25 Jul 2017
52
16th
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.
Rated 25 Jul 2017
trash_puppetTrash Puppet
Rated 25 Jul 2012
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.).
Rated 25 Jul 2012
kavuKavu
Rated 08 Nov 2012
72
51st
Plenty of holes in the script but it's still better than Raimi's first Spidey. Some pretty cool action sequences.
Rated 08 Nov 2012
htimanhtiman
Rated 29 Nov 2012
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.
Rated 29 Nov 2012
twincinematwincinema
Rated 27 Dec 2022
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.
Rated 27 Dec 2022
ununniliumUnunnilium
Rated 26 Mar 2013
71
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.
Rated 26 Mar 2013
nobambanobamba
Rated 17 Jun 2019
60
62nd
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.
Rated 17 Jun 2019
honestthiefHonest_Thief
Rated 12 Jul 2012
3
31st
A great cast and overall fun movie, but the emotional beats feel wrong or unimportant.
Rated 12 Jul 2012
vinegarbobVinegarBob
Rated 29 Oct 2012
30
12th
This could have been good. It started off okay...assholes.
Rated 29 Oct 2012
basasdurabasasdura
Rated 13 May 2013
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.
Rated 13 May 2013
hofschneiderHofschneider
Rated 11 May 2013
70
30th
dull.
Rated 11 May 2013
badfurdayBadFurDay
Rated 09 Jan 2021
6
60th
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.
Rated 09 Jan 2021
cowfrappecowfrappe
Rated 20 Sep 2012
70
58th
A surprising and fun revamp carried by Garfield and Stone, who are excellent.
Rated 20 Sep 2012
walkenrollWalkenRoll
Rated 11 Jul 2012
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.
Rated 11 Jul 2012
parcalihamparcaliham
Rated 31 Jul 2012
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.
Rated 31 Jul 2012
omgfridgeomgfridge
Rated 16 Jul 2012
3
26th
I miss Tobey
Rated 16 Jul 2012
naurunauru
Rated 21 Oct 2012
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.
Rated 21 Oct 2012
cakeucakeu
Rated 05 Feb 2020
80
52nd
i actually love andrew garfield as spiderman sadddddd
Rated 05 Feb 2020
cagedwisdomcagedwisdom
Rated 12 Jul 2012
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.
Rated 12 Jul 2012
spookymaskSpookyMask
Rated 09 Jul 2012
70
60th
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.
Rated 09 Jul 2012
doctor7doctor7
Rated 23 Nov 2012
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.
Rated 23 Nov 2012
boxcarsBoxcars
Rated 31 May 2015
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.
Rated 31 May 2015
joojooJooJoo
Rated 06 Jul 2012
3
32nd
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.
Rated 06 Jul 2012
mlightle3mlightle3
Rated 16 Sep 2012
80
60th
Not a bad movie, pretty great depiction of Spiderman.
Rated 16 Sep 2012
ratedarghratedargh
Rated 06 Jul 2012
35
10th
Don't care, don't care, don't care.
Rated 06 Jul 2012
djrossdjross
Rated 09 Apr 2024
35
19th
A young man is infected with DNA from a biotechnologically mutated spider (one wonders if now-popular unscientific ideas such as that promiscuous women become “contaminated” by male DNA might have received a boost from this kind of nonsensical blockbuster-movie setup) and finds himself at war with a man infected both with DNA from a biotechnologically mutated lizard and with transhumanist ideology and its notions of eliminating weakness and escaping human limitations. The second half drags.
Rated 09 Apr 2024
tripwyreTripwyre
Rated 05 Aug 2012
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.
Rated 05 Aug 2012
gogokaingogokain
Rated 03 Jul 2012
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.
Rated 03 Jul 2012
myfavchordsmyfavchords
Rated 16 Nov 2014
68
24th
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.
Rated 16 Nov 2014
burkayadaligburkayadalig
Rated 22 Oct 2012
58
17th
a totally unnecessary and "amazingly" sloppy remake
Rated 22 Oct 2012
joseywalesjoseywales
Rated 13 Nov 2012
77
79th
Excellent example of an origin story!
Rated 13 Nov 2012

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...