Review: 'The Amazing Spider-Man' Webs Unoriginality and Laziness

July 3, 2012

The Amazing Spider-Man Review

Whether or not we needed another origin story for Marvel's web-slinger Spider-Man is a question as easy to answer as it is moot. No, a reboot of the Spider-Man franchise after three Sam Raimi efforts was anything but necessary. Once it came to the relaunch's inevitability, though, the question turned from "Do we need it?" to "Will it be any good?" That answer isn't as definite, but the dubiety for The Amazing Spider-Man may have been a foreshadowing of the film we got. Little effort in story originality and an extremely weak villain make the summer blockbuster feel like an inferior product—"product" being the operative word.

The assembly line this movie came out on remembered all the key plot points. Peter Parker, played here by Andrew Garfield, is an introverted high schooler, spending as much of his days pining over classmate Gwen Stacy, played by Emma Stone, as he does avoiding bullies. When Parker learns of his father, who left him with Aunt May and Uncle Ben when he was a baby, and of the man's scientific research, the curious boy has no choice but to look into it. This takes him to Oscorp and Dr. Curt Connors, his father's partner played by Rhys Ifans. Together the two attempt to perfect the father's cell regeneration serum while Peter, having been conveniently bitten by one of Oscorp's test-subject spiders, finds new abilities to scale walls and move with incredible reflexes. The web shooters aren't built-in this time. Peter invents them to appease the anger of die-hard fans of the original comics.

With three screenwriters working on the film—James Vanderbilt receives the sole "Story By" credit, though, so much of the blame can rest on his shoulders—there's no doubt that a lot of time and effort went into this story, even though, for the most part, we just saw it a decade ago. Peter getting bitten, learning his powers, even Uncle Ben's tragic death and it being indirectly caused by the boy's lack of "great responsibility" are all points the film had to touch upon. This isn't an issue if the events are done in a fresh or creative way. Neither Vanderbilt, nor any of the other screenwriters, add anything of interest here, particularly to the story we already know. Beyond that, The Amazing Spider-Man has little to offer with the things we haven't seen before, Dr. Connors and his ultimate transformation included.

The movie has a lack of weight, which is especially noticed in the moments where we should be feeling something. You can thank the space of time between Raimi's Spider-Man and this film for a lot of that. Seeing Uncle Ben get shot once again has little impact when it's essentially a recreation we've just seen. It doesn't matter how great Martin Sheen is as the character, and he is. It's not something you can really hold against The Amazing Spider-Man if you're going to critique the film for what it is, not for it's proximity to another film. Even still, it's not a feeling during that can be completely turned off while watching it. It doesn't help that the rest of the screenplay unfolds awkwardly, sometimes with a notion of slapdash, as if the ending wasn't planned while the middle was being written. Huge plot lines go completely unresolved regardless of how much screen time they take up.

But The Amazing Spider-Man's biggest problem is not with its screenplay. Director Marc Webb caught audience's attention with 2009's (500) Days of Summer, even hitting the top spot on some critic's top 10 that year. That film was a small romantic comedy with a genuine heart and a highly inventive technique for telling its story. There was speculation that jumping from that to a massive blockbuster such as The Amazing Spider-Man might have been a sign of Webb biting off more than he could chew. Unfortunately, that's exactly how the film feels. When Peter is in high school, the scenes work fine, nothing special but nothing distracting, either. Garfield and Stone carry enough honest charm between them to make those scenes work in pitch dark, anyway. It's the action scenes where Webb really loses his footing, sometimes missing moments in Spidey's battles completely. Other times the camera feels stagnant, lacking a sense of excitement that would really kick the film in gear.

This lack of excitement grinds the film's momentum to a screeching halt long before the typical giant battle of the CG characters explodes on screen with all the fury of a doped-up lab rat. The scene we knew we would get to with Peter learning about his newly acquired abilities and testing his limits plays to the tune of Coldplay's "Kingdom Come", not a bad song necessarily but not what you would consider and energetic beat. Similar tastes in music abounds from Webb throughout, some okay choices, others not as much. Nothing comes near the overall vibe of the soundtrack filling the lives of the characters we got from Webb's first feature, a small drawback, but you expect more from the director.

His handling of actors has, however, carried over tremendously with Garfield and Stone. Garfield's Peter Parker, though not as nebbish as Tobey Maguire's, fights battles within himself. Most of these are far more interesting, thanks in large part to the young actor, than when Spider-Man is butting heads with car thieves. The fight sequences include Peter's quips and verbal jabs at his opponents, most of them pulled off strongly by Garfield. The Peter Parker/Gwen Stacy relationship is a vast improvement over the lump of coal found between the protagonist and Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane in the original films. Emma Stone is as adorable as she is compelling, another sturdy factor in how believable Peter and Gwen are together.

Rhys Ifans, hindered by some seriously awful, post-production audio work, comes and goes from scenes without ever creating any kind of real presence for Dr. Connors. The poor design on his Lizard altar ego makes the entire character one, forgettable comic book villain, the worst the series has offered. Yes, we’re including Topher Grace as Venom in that. Other turns by Sheen—mentioned above—Sally Field as Aunt May, and Denis Leary as Gwen's police captain father who's on a crusade to see Spider-Man locked away, are all meritorious. C. Thomas Howell shows up for apparently no other reason than for you to say, "Oh, my God, that's C. Thomas Howell in 2012."

That latter role, by the way, is yet another strange element to The Amazing Spider-Man, not surprisingly something else this version seems to borrow from Raimi's original film—I'm not a fan of the comic books, I can't say if it's something taken from them. The sense of community Spider-Man brings out of New York City is an interesting aspect, the thought of everyday people helping a superhero fight his battles. This aspect does have a payoff just before the climaxing battle, but it's late in the game, it comes from an awkward left field, and it's downright stupid.

You can't say the same for the rest of the film, not entirely that is. Amazing Spider-Man has moments of stupidity, more lacking in substance than we're willing to accept even in a summer blockbuster. But, for the most part, the film feels more lazy than dumb, the kind of feeling you get when a studio is trying to grab as much cash from a property before it loses the rights. The standard mid-credit sequence reveals another unanswered mystery that we'll have to discover the meaning to in a sequel. We always knew there would be another Spider-Man movie after Raimi's days were over. We knew a reboot would tell Peter Parker's transformation into the web-slinger would hit us once again some day. We just didn't know The Amazing Spider-Man would be this familiar and have this little to offer, about as far from "amazing" as you can get.

Jeremy's Rating: 4.5 out of 10

Find more posts: Review



How did i guess this would be Jeremy Kirk after only reading the headline? pffft

Guy who comments on things on Jul 3, 2012


yeah i have learned to look into what title he puts the movie review and then look at the rating he has given to see how much im going to feel opposite about it. and you know what? i have loved every movie he has not....

Jericho on Jul 4, 2012


Hey, me too!

Lamar on Jul 4, 2012


Same here!

Matt Peloquin on Jul 6, 2012


okay I didn't get past the headline of the article before gathering that this 'movie critic' is obviously an idiot who doesn't know what to look for in a re-make/re-boot. I just saw this movie and had little hope for it before and after I left the theatre I was amazed and blown away at how much better it was than the original, yes I love the original but this movie had a much better storyline and more detail and was beautifully made especially the visuals of Spider-Man swinging and moving throughout the city. It was truer to the original comic storyline than the Raimi version and for this 'movie critic' to say it's un-original' and nothing new needs to say that to Stan Lee and apologize because this wasn't meant to be an entirely made-up story it is based on a comic-book story from many decades ago, with a few added side stuff and a modernized tone. Even Roger Ebert gave it a good review and gave it 3 1/2 out of 4 stars and that's rare for him to give a good review for a Spider-Man movie. So screw you 'Jeremy', I'll remember not to read your reviews on the sequels or any other super-hero movies.

Ted Edwards on Jul 3, 2012


At least not an intelligent one

axalon on Jul 3, 2012


Read the rest of his sentence. He said he read the headline and knew the critic was an idiot. He never said he didn't read the rest of the review.

Erik Velasquez on Jul 3, 2012


ebert gave it 3 not 3 1/2.

me on Jul 5, 2012


wait just re checked it, you were right, my bad

me on Jul 5, 2012


The hypocrisy of the guy with one of the LONGEST comments on the page not taking the time to READ THE ARTICLE is not lost on me.

Joseph Berkeley on Jul 3, 2012


son were yu born yestereve. and even though spider man 1 was made in 2002 it still had better graphical content of the swinging through the buldings.

amos on Jul 4, 2012


disappointing to hear this.. Did you have high expectations walking into it?

Nick Sears on Jul 3, 2012


I was nervous about it, but I had hope, especially for Webb. God, I love (500) Days of Summer. :-/

Jeremy Kirk on Jul 4, 2012


I did not like 500... but I think this Spider-Man film did a lot right that Raimi couldn't pull off. So, I was pleasded with it. Too bad it was a reboot, otherwise they could have used some of Raimis scenes taken from the comic.

Ryderup on Jul 4, 2012


Dude, Miles Morales (New Ultimate Spider-man) would have been a better choice for a reboot.

wildcardcomics on Jul 3, 2012


Ultimate Spider-man /w Miles Morales in the 2016 reboot. 🙂

Edward Young Jr on Jul 3, 2012


This review is spot on. This movie was way too cheesy

Jason Mckim on Jul 3, 2012


I love how this review proves that film reviews are idiotic. Why? I've just read another one that absolutely loved the film and another that was in between. Another thing that drives me nuts is how everyone is harping on Sony rebooting Spider-Man and how we "don't need" another Spider-Man film, but no one ever says, "Hey, do we really need another James Bond movie? Can an audience possibly accept a new 007 face?" No! Everytime there's a new Bond, people are ecstatic and intrigued. Don't get me wrong... I love the Bond films. They're always fun. But they are some of the most cookie-cutter stories you're going to get. And nobody ever complains. So why are so many people harping on Spidey? We already know certain characters will always be updated and remade/reimagined. We're on Batman #4 with Bale (not counting Adam West and the old black and white serials) and WB has already stated that a new Batman will be developed shortly. As far as this particular film critique, I sense the writer went in thinking he was going to hate the film and so he did. I'll reserve judgment till after I see it, but I suspect that I'll be on the opposite spectrum. What can I say? I'm just as predisposed as the next guy. Only I don't get paid for it.

Spyder121 on Jul 3, 2012


You dont need another spidy when the last 3 movies worked fine and dominated the box office. A reboot was completely Batman was in desperate need of a reboot before Nolan's Dark Knight.

James DaNegro on Jul 3, 2012


The Bond movies were also in need of a reboot before Casino Royal.

James DaNegro on Jul 3, 2012


personally i think it didn't need a reboot, but it was interesting to see how they would put the spin on the story, in fact it's more accurate than the first trilogy, parker dates stacy first, then green goblin so forth. They seem that they want to stick with how the comic was made rather than fix it for hollywood aproval. This is more for the comic fans than the movie goers.

J David on Jul 3, 2012


To be fair, i answer this in the studios outlook. A successful series, from a production standpoint, is of course in a need for a reboot because it can draw in fans new and old to grab more money. Sometimes the business model wins out over all other motivations. p.s. As a spidey fan, I did NOT think spiderman 3 worked fine 😛

dmarkrode on Jul 4, 2012


I thought this too until a friend that works at Disney mentioned that Sony loses the rights to produce any more Marvel films in 2 years. This was a cash grab on a waning licensing deal. That's why the reboot was "necessary" in Hollywood's eyes.

McWetty on Jul 4, 2012


Correct! Nolan showed what is Batman..He is the Dark Knight!

ASB on Jul 10, 2012


Save your money. Trust me, this is one huge p.o.s.

T.J. Burke on Jul 3, 2012



Chris on Jul 3, 2012


Just saw it. Makes Sam Raimi's look terrible. The character of Spiderman works far better, his relationship with Gwen Stacey is more believable and the action scenes are much better. It doesn't have that Raimi "cheese" and Hollywood polish, it's grittier and truer to the comic Spiderman.

J.D. Trotter on Jul 5, 2012


Not a fan of James Bond, but it's always a "new" story. This being reboot it's basically the same story AGAIN.

Davide Coppola on Jul 4, 2012


I agree ^ James Bond is always a new story, we do not see basically the same story just with new characters. So, please do not compare the new spiderman to the Bond films. Also we truly DID NOT need this, Sam's trilogy was great, obviously with the third lacking but the second film was pure greatness to watch.

Kwaz on Jul 4, 2012


Your right...Second installment was great, though the 3rd and final part was sentimental and boring, it was and is far better than the Amazing Spider-man. Lizard was the most terrible villian I ever saw. Still missing Doc-Oct!

ASB on Jul 10, 2012


i think the problem you are having is that Mark Webb tried to do a mostly original concept while being tied down to the reboot formula he was forced to follow with... and you are just never satisfied with popcorn flicks.... the lizard doesn't count for complaints due to showing you exactly how a man would look with Lizard there ya go and C.Thomas Howell scenes are a little tricky unless you looked into it, im not into comics myself but i knew Stan Lee had a lot of apparent background movement in spider-man comics involving construction workers and cops moving around then suddenly things that are typically controlled by them are in convenient places for him to use that were not there before...

Jericho on Jul 3, 2012


This was the best Spider-man film since the original. Your a boring idiot who lacks creativity, where else have you seen a person slinging spider webs from their wrists other than the Spider-man? Idiots like you ruin this world with stupidity.. Stop reviewing films or don't watch them

This guy on Jul 3, 2012


Why dont you stop reading the reviews and enjoy your movie? come on. Opinions? we all have em

buzzfunk on Jul 4, 2012


This movie was a waste...they should have continued where Spidy 3 left over and explored venom more.

James DaNegro on Jul 3, 2012


Personally the trilogy gives it's last gasp in spiderman three. It sucked so much i remember going on premiere day at night, huge line, everyone excited to see venom. When i left i was disapointed. I couldn't even think of a #4 after that. Story stunk, when peter walks down that seen where they have like some 70's music on, what i thought was stupid was the part where he puts his hair down, saying that his taking a darker side, more like a gayer side. If you know what i'm talking about you understand me. Ending sucks, they just hug and that's it. So if you like spiderman 3 than you also like those movies that only come out on dvd and never hit theaters. Spiderman needed to be saved with a story that actually went with the comic.

Movie Critic on Jul 3, 2012


I liked it, and that is all that matters.

Edward Young Jr on Jul 3, 2012


I accept that this movie was not the best, but this review is just shit

Hazedmind on Jul 3, 2012


All your reviews are so trollish it's not even funny

RayCharles on Jul 3, 2012


lol - but, aren't all reviews unless completely positive, kind of by definition, trollish?

bozo connors on Jul 5, 2012


Okay i understand that the movie told a story already told, but more acurately according to the story, the right girl, actor who is actually younger than tobey was in spiderman 1. It was their twist and it was needed after spiderman 3, i remember leaving the theater after the spiderman 3 ended. It sucked and it made me disapointed, to me they were more unoriginal and lazy. And first of all how's a comicbook movie supposed to be original, it's supposed just like the comics unless they change it all. And reboots usually happen when there's an opening for a younger audience, a new generation. The reboots are made when the kid who watched the first rendition is now an adult with kids. So you can't blame webb, but with the tech the capabilities were endless. So i think the reboot was good.

GH TARRis on Jul 3, 2012


Jermey's reviews are like Charlie sheen they are funny to observe but no one takes them seriously

Mark Juvera on Jul 3, 2012


HAHAHAHA now thats funny!

Aaron E. Doyle on Jul 3, 2012


Not gonna lie, sir. You made me laugh at that.

Jeremy Kirk on Jul 3, 2012


Too many comparisons to the original. Judge it on its own. Though hard, an accomplished, seasoned writer's audience would benefit more from that type of critique. Finally, you are gaining a rep Jeremy for being a "poopy pants" when you review something. Find a balance. Too much h8tin'.

Quanah on Jul 3, 2012


Well I think it looks good but really did they need to make another spider man movie y make another spiderman when its not as good as the last ones they mde

big-j on Jul 3, 2012


This reviewer is from Mars - I just saw the movie and it was terrific, much better than the original, and the original was a good movie! I guess the reviewer Kirk likes being contrarian, but alls he's really doing is making sure people never read his reviews again! Last thing - it was the BEST 3D flick I've ever seen....WOW!

Jakester on Jul 3, 2012


Totally agree. I just left the theatre and I was shaking my head and laughing at how stupid this movie is. At first I thought I was just being a stubborn fan boy, but everything is terrible about the movie. The story dumb, plot dumb, music dumb, sound effects dumb. Just plain dumb. I think I'm going to watch Spiderman 3 to wash the taste out of my mouth.

T.J. Burke on Jul 3, 2012


Now with a comment like that you HAVE to be a troll...or have mental issues. Spiderman 3 was awful.

Taylor on Jul 4, 2012


Amazing Spider-man was just that,AMAZING! a fresh and accurate take on the wall crawler.The humor was spot on,the action was more so,thats how Spidey should move,this makes Toby's look like a chubby bug eyed half wit. people are clearly taking side on sentament alone,those movies were cool...for that time,but this is how it should have been done! The story was perfect! The villian was cool,and all the actors gave fantastic performances! AMAZING!

Aaron E. Doyle on Jul 3, 2012


You have terrible taste if you think it's worse than 3.

LolMovieCritics on Jul 3, 2012


Wow. I would just like to say that I've been coming to your site for years now, having the highest respect for your staff's general taste in movies and critiques (though occasionally disagreeing, but not to a large extent). But, holy schnikes, dude. I feel like we didn't watch the same film. The Amazing Spider-Man was everything I hoped it would be AND more. The general story arc wasn't rushed, the humor was top notch, the character development was some of the best I've seen in a superhero flick, and the message was a powerful one. All in all.... the movie freaking rocked. Unoriginal? It's a REBOOT. Of course, it's unoriginal, that's the whole point!! It's like you forgot that there were three other movies of the same title that (I will always hold dear to my heart but) were strongly lacking in certain areas that this movie made up for in SPADES. His banter and the implementation of his web-shooters ALONE was enough to make me enjoy this film, however, it was accompanied by fantastic performances all-around, top notch camera and stunt work, an intriguing score, and an involving storyline. You, Jeremy, have just made my (and apparently a bunch of other people's by the comments I'm reading) "Remember to Ignore" list. I feel sorry for you that you're the type of person that didn't enjoy a wonderful film like The Amazing Spider-Man. I know people like you. People who display they're opinion like it's the freaking news of the day. This will be the last of your review articles I read. 4.5? Mr. Kirk, I have only one thing to say, "Beam him up, Scotty. Get him out of here."

Danny Lybeck on Jul 3, 2012


This isn't the first time this website has given unsavory reviews to well deserving movies. I am in agreement, I will stay away from this reviewer permanently.

dmarkrode on Jul 4, 2012


PLEASE ! will someone hating on Jeremy for his review actually break down his points and say EXACTLY why he was wrong .I just read alotta whining and no constructive criticism except from the people who hated the movie ALSO ! I will agree that if he doesn't know the franchise someone else who did shoulda done the review ; however Jeremy does intimate that he's seen Rami's 3 ...

Dominic A on Jul 9, 2012


This movie just shows the ultimate laziness of Hollywood; why make a new movie when a 'rewrite' of a known money maker makes better sense... There are frigging thousands of great books out there, thousands upon thousands of new comic book stories but damn; you'll never see any thing past when the actor ages 10 years older or lord forbid it's a REBOOT... Look, if you want to spend your money on the same story again (OK, better CGI?)... The Original Star Wars (yeah, Luke, Jaba... blah blah) wasn't any better with Jaba slinking around with all his slime-i-ness. Was that last "Superman" reboot any good??? From my point of view, it's rare that a good original story comes along with someone willing to tell it and give it it's all. Demand better folks... because if you don't you'll get another "reboot" of Spider-man or Super-man or Lizard-man... WTF?? DEMAND Better Folks... and stop wasting all our time with remakes... take the chance on something new.... PLEASE.

Mark McIntyre on Jul 3, 2012


This review is spot on. Except I think the acting sucked too.

Shogun on Jul 3, 2012


Are you fucking serious? Do you have eyes? Andrew Garfield deserves an oscar for this performance, and Rhys Ifans, Emma Stone and Denis Leary were all gold. This is an example of an opinion that is simply wrong, much like the article's.

Jake on Jul 4, 2012


Context is huge. No matter the subject a quote read out of context can be devastating. The same goes for seeing a movie expecting something other than what the film was made to be. Spider man was made to be an entertaining super hero movie. If you went to the movie and left entertained I think it was successful. Now on a deeper level because this reboot was made 10 years after the previous versions of course there is a lot of comparison. A lot of the same story being told. But if Marc Webb didn't stay "true" to the Peter Parker back story even though it would be viewed as borrowing things from Sam's spider man he would be given so much shit. Sadly people cant all be pleased. And Marc went to tell his view of spider man and I found it fantastic. As Marc states in interviews he didnt want Peter parker to have that charm he wanted him to be the out cast, to be on the outside looking in. In the comics this is portrayed with him being a nerd but now adays every one is a nerd. So the social awkwardness that Garfield brought to the table was spot on for the modern peter Parker portrayal. And I you feel that there was no chemistry between him and Gwen you are a fool. It was hard not to smile every time they were on screen together. Yes I think the story was lacking. But. It's spider man. It's meant to make us question at what price would you want these gifts. What would we do? And in the end it was made for us just to sit back and enjoy a movie about a teenager fighting evil in a red spidey suit.

Dev on Jul 4, 2012


Once again Jeremy proves why he should not be employed as a movie critic. This movie needs to be judges in it own, not rami's series. While I do agree it was soon to get a reimagination on the web crawler, the movie was really good. Different from rami's and I think that is where people get hung up. It stuck pretty close to the spiderman canon, great acting great visuals and it had heart. Did it have flaws- yes, but that doesnt mean its a terrible movie. Jeremy needs to take the stick out of his butt and get over himself. Better yet, let's give him $200mil and see if he can do any better, then maybe he'll learn to appreciate movies a little more.

One on Jul 4, 2012


The originals sucked. Sam Raimi needs to stick to cackling fruit cellar crones (he does those well).

chjapa on Jul 4, 2012


4.5 out of 10 is a ridiculously low score. That's walk-out-of-the-theatre-before-it's-over-because-it's-so-awful level. Are you sure it's a 4.5 out of ten?

Kyle on Jul 4, 2012


4.5 is nowhere near walk-out-of-the-theatre-before-it's-over-because-it's-so-awful level. 5 is a C. 4 is a C-. This is somewhere in between. In fact, that might be a high score for how I feel about the movie. 3 is D+. That might have been more accurate.

Jeremy Kirk on Jul 4, 2012


No offence, I don't know what kind of maths you're using but less than 50% isn't usually a C.

Guy who comments on things on Jul 4, 2012


this was the worst fucking movie ever. they wasted there money and time on this movie. they should have used the real peter not some gay english guy and first of all spiderman is an all american guy, how is andrew classified as that. they should have made spiderman 4 when peter dies and finish the story and not make a gay ass reboot the critique man/woman actually knows what he/her is talking about thats exactly why he/her is one. and people who oppose the critique are people who are not the one writing the reviews and cant so what ever you say doesn't really do anything or make sense because. this was a bitch ass movie that should have never been made. he cried more when gwen stacie's dad died than when uncle ben died. and how did he even ask her out it was the worst directing ever to be made for a big movie like spider man and i was embarrised to even watch it so if you think that this movie wasn't horrible your horrible and a goat thief and toby is epic and is the bomb.

Amos Ndukwe on Jul 4, 2012


Above is a prime example that the couple hundred million dollars used to make this movie should have been used in local school systems. Still, I loved the movie.

Stavi on Jul 4, 2012


Jeremy you need to get over yourself, grow up and stop being a big cry baby and throwing your toys out of the pram all because they decided to reboot Spidey!!! You even said it yourself "I'm not a fan of the comics" we all know this film is based very much on the comics so why in the hell were you picked to review this film. Your whole review reads like an 11 year olds essay handed in at the last minute because the family dog devoured the first one, I suggest you give someone else a try next time, maybe a professional eh and also stick to what you know too and that way you won't come across as an arrogant rank amateur.

Darrell on Jul 4, 2012


Wow, the comments on this are just as diverse as the critics reviews have been. I can't wait to see the movie and form my own opinion. One thing i will say to some of these commenter's is learn to suck it up and get over things. We get it, It's a reboot. We get it, it's "unoriginal". We get it, Raimi's movies aren't that old. Get over it and stop judging a movie but whether it's existence is "necessary".

Rodion on Jul 4, 2012


Well then, someone's desperate for traffic now aren't we?! Ha!...

Agent Kid Society on Jul 4, 2012


I'm not familiar with this film critic, or his past reviews, but agree with this review 100%. Bad story but great casting for a movie that just wasn't needed. If you're gonna reboot so soon ya gotta give us something new.

darthwhitey on Jul 4, 2012


This film was wonderful? Wtf. This was the worst movie ever. You guys who are saying this review sucks-- you suck.

Richard Canlas on Jul 4, 2012


Though I haven't seen the film, I can imagine this review being spot on, but that's to be expected since I agree with almost every review by Mr. Kirk. I have to disagree on Kirsten Dunst, though: She's one of the best actresses working right now.

Davide Coppola on Jul 4, 2012


well I loved the movie. you act like it Gus Van Sant's Psycho remake

Jurassic_Max on Jul 4, 2012


Finally! A review I can relate to. Don't listen to the 'nay sayers' Jeremy. You point out the movies' flaws perfectly, and you're not afraid to put them out there. The Amazing Spider-Man is a flawed movie, that could have been better if the creators shared more interests for the source material. Perfect review of an imperfect movie.

Yonix (Remco) on Jul 4, 2012


Couldn't agree more, and what about those stupid first person cg scenes of spidey climbing/swinging. So awkward and unnecessary!

Andrew on Jul 4, 2012


Is it weird that I agree with pretty much everything you said, but still really enjoyed the movie? Probably.

Preston Beaty on Jul 4, 2012


This review is dead on. Sony Imageworks CG work is easily recognizable in every Spiderman film as being the most worst in the industry, while oddly enough being as expensive as ILM or Weta. The worst bang for your buck. Their work on Green Lantern, Superman Returns, Harry Potter 1 are just a few examples. The film is uneven in tone and does not know what it wants to be. It is hacked together plagiarizing moments from other films including their soundtracks. Marc Webb and Avi Arad do a terrible job of directing this reboot. Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker cries nearly every chance possible. Thumbs down. I'm glad I saw this film for free.

James Park on Jul 4, 2012


Jeremy's reviews SUCK. you have HORRIBLE TASTE

Don on Jul 4, 2012


Poor review, but to each their own. Thought this was the best spiderman movie to date.

HealthyPoison on Jul 4, 2012


Please do not pay attention to this review. It is absolutely terrible. I loved the backdrop with his parents, I loved the Oscorp tie in, I loved that it wasn't Mary Jane thank goodness. Denis Leary character was incredible and finally Andrew Garfield played the slightly sarcastic and human Spiderman we all deserve. Again what a TERRIBLE review.

RD on Jul 4, 2012


No disrespect to you Jeremy, but I don't think I've ever agreed with any of your reviews of anything. haha

Ryan Hancock on Jul 4, 2012


This was a reboot, a more accurate telling of Spiderman. This made me forget about Raimi's disastrous trilogy. Garfield was spectacular as Parker, and Ifans was the Curtis Connors I wanted all the cartoon representations to be. As a die-hard Spiderman lifer, this was the perfect superhero movie. For those who weren't raised in the Silver Age, it's understandable that you would approach this as a moviegoer instead of a comic geek.

Stavi on Jul 4, 2012


oh look another poopy pants jeremy review lol

Daniel Vu Tran on Jul 5, 2012


I don't know what movie this guy was watching but the movie I saw was awesome...not many superhero actually stay true to comic book story but this one did down to the last detail as opposed to the Sam Raimi versions which really concentrated more on star-power, fantasy, special effects & brought in villains way before there time simply because they're more well-known. This movie actually got it right.

Chris on Jul 5, 2012


Really? tell me one thing apart from acting that was good...Did they told "THE UNTOLD STORY" as written in the posters?

ASB on Jul 10, 2012


Great review, I could not agree more.

John on Jul 5, 2012


Was an incredible reboot... of course they retread some old plot elements, but what you want them to do? Reinvent spiderman and completely shit on his origin whilst leaving out some of the most emotionally gripping elements in his early life? Screw your pretentious reviews. You never looked at this as its own film, you just sat and picked holes, giving this 4.5 as a professional review is just stupid.

Guy who comments on things on Jul 5, 2012


'Amazing' did better as a Spider-man movie as far as sticking to the source material, but the original Sam Raimi version was a better film in almost every single way. They had a charm and originality to them that the reboot attempted to capture in a new way and instead it ended up feeling empty and contrived.

Dude on Jul 10, 2012


Please stop this reboot stuff. Already the number of sequels are jumping manifold. Studios should bring something refreshing!

ASB on Jul 10, 2012


Best Spider-Man film to date.

Pete on Jul 22, 2012


You people are braindead. I don't know this reviewer's reputation but it doesn't change the fact that he's spot on. This film is hurting in more places than your usual bad flick. The audio is off, the camera's are off, the animation is all over the place, the dialogue is stagnant. Maybe it's because I'm a film student who understands structure? Is this movie something that can only be enjoyed as a distant viewer? Because if you start looking at it deeper than the flesh it's just awful. Actually the the reviewer said two things I disagree with. He credited the chemistry between the leads. I thought their relationship was flat, I don't care how cute Emma is. When the two spent a solid two minutes of the film stuttering at each other I thought my head was going to explode. That might be neat in real life, maybe even in comics, but not in film. The other issue was he compared this one to the old films far too much. It isn't necessary to hold the two up together to get an idea of how bad this film is and maybe for some people it would help them understand better if they didn't. Also, I'm not telling folks not to enjoy the movie, my mom loves it and I feel bad for telling her it was terrible, but I wish people could understand that you can enjoy something and still know it is of poor quality. I hate that in modern times people can't just say, "Yeah I loved it, but god it sucked."

Truth on Jan 21, 2013


I thought this movie stunk to the high hells, GIVE ME RAIMI AND MAGUIRE! This movie was in all regards a bad movie, I agree with some of his points but others I disagree with. Thank you I'll boycott this movie and any sequels based on it, I'll watch the 3 that already exist now and the potential if a Venom movie comes out.

ASM-Hater#??? on Mar 3, 2013

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram Telegram