Sound Off: Marc Webb's 'The Amazing Spider-Man' - Your Thoughts?

July 3, 2012

The Amazing Spider-Man

Now that you've seen it, what did you think? The untold story begins. He's back! Our neighborhood Spider-Man returns to the big screen (only 5 years after Raimi's trilogy) in a fresh new take on the Marvel superhero, this time with Marc Webb (500 Days of Summer) at the helm, directing Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker. He brings Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben, Sally Field as Aunt May, plus Denis Leary, Irrfan Khan and Rhys Ifans as Dr. Connors. So how is it? Better than the last series? Worth all of this? Once you've seen it, post a comment with your thoughts on Amazing Spider-Man.

To fuel Spidey's fire, I've only been able to catch The Amazing Spider-Man once, in IMAX 3D, and while it looked fantastic, I wasn't that impressed with the film itself. Something about it just felt a little too forced as a reboot, too forced to "go in the other direction" (as Brandon touches upon here), and never enough of its own identity, not enough to stand out on its own. There are some awesome momentsโ€”I love the scene when he rescues the kid in the flaming car, amazing; and I love the final CG swinging shots, the best in the movie. But it's hard to love much else in it, and I felt like it was lacking. Andrew Garfield does an excellent job, I'm happy with him and Emma Stone, but other than that I wasn't "amazed", even though I wanted to be.

What did you think of Webb's Amazing Spider-Man? Fantastic new reboot, or failed attempt? We will remove any comments that indicate you have not seen the movie, as this area is meant to discuss the film only once you have seen it and can talk about your thoughts. Please keep the comments civilized!

Find more posts: Discuss, Hype, Sound Off



Loved it! So much better than the first three!!!

Napkinbob on Jul 3, 2012


Absolutely in love with this version. Garfield was amazing as Peter/Spider-Man, and while I think the main Lizard plot line wasn't terribly imaginative, I thought it was still well done and didn't detract much from the overall quality. What really sold this movie for me was the attention to all the nuances of Peter's development into a superhero, and I feel like this movie did a much better job of that than the first one. And this one actually had Spider-Man constantly wise cracking, which was sorely missed in the first three.

Phillip Gockel on Jul 3, 2012


Garfields version of Spiderman was Spiderman. Raimi and McGuire took that fun kid out of spidey I thought. Totally agree.

HealthyPoison on Jul 4, 2012


I liked it too, even better then the first one minus the new aunt may and Ben Parker. It is just hard to get used to a new spidey movie universe. even though imo he was a better spiderman and the movie was better.

Mark Juvera on Jul 3, 2012


I can see that. As for Aunt May, the original trilogy's actress always came off as a bit wooden to me, sort of like "aww, she's acting, it's nice that she still gets out." That may just be me though. But as for Uncle Ben, I absolutely loved the original. Not to say that Martin Sheen was bad in this one, but the original just was so heart felt. And I can't help but keep remembering that Martin Sheen fathered Charlie Sheen, so that doesn't help his credentials as an excellent father figure.

Phillip Gockel on Jul 3, 2012


Seriously? That's what tainted Uncle Ben for you? How the hell is Martin Sheen supposed to control what his 46 year old son does?

axalon on Jul 3, 2012


i like how you're ID has you listed as a parent too...hahah. nevertheless, good point on Charlie's antics

conradthegreat on Jul 3, 2012


No, not seriously. It was an (attempted) joke, although it would seem it fell flat.

Phillip Gockel on Jul 3, 2012


Well, it was a good attempt.... I did like Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben, although I'm not going to decide who was better--him or Cliff Robertson. I respect both actors immensely.

Scopedog on Jul 3, 2012


Everything in Raimis film felt acted with lines from a terrible script. This one felt natural. I dug it. But some scenes felt unused. Like Martin Sheen dying, better acted than in Raimis film - but would have loved it to have stayed closer to the comic as Raimis did.

Ryderup on Jul 4, 2012


I felt the exact same way, Alex. It was cast perfectly, I loved Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone both...but something in the script was lacking. Maybe the pacing was jerky or there were plot holes or SOMETHING, but something about it didn't quite feel right. The visuals were awesome, i loved so much about it more than the first one, and yet the plot, to me, just felt a little off. Hopefully when they do the sequel they are able to find a way to set it even farther apart from the Toby McGuire ones.

ginger_and_proud on Jul 3, 2012


Had a lot of fun with this. Everything I was looking for in the first three Spider-Man films was here, including MORE Spider-Man. Also, I geeked out and got goosebumps during the crane scene. Yeah, I went there.

George S. on Jul 3, 2012


Alex, you're off your rocker if you don't think this was better than the other three films combined. Yes, it was too soon for a reboot. But it's the best movie of the year so far, and probably the best comic book movie since the Dark Knight. I just tried to forget that the other 3 spidey's ever existed. It's the most fun I've had in a looong time at the theater. And the Cameo from Stan Lee was the best he's ever had.

ion677 on Jul 3, 2012


I agree with your sentiments of it being better than the original 3 an probably too soon for a reboot, but I wouldn't go so far as to say best movie of the year. I loved it myself, but I have a strong bias towards anything spidey, and I recognize this film probably won't have the mass appeal of something like the avengers even. And yes, Stan Lee cameo was fantastic.

Phillip Gockel on Jul 3, 2012


I'm conflicted over this version. I am a huge fan of the original but I really wanted this to be good too. It just felt a little bland. I didn't hate it, I just didn't love it either.

cs on Jul 3, 2012


Saw it last night. I'm going to agree with the masses that Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone were perfectly cast. They were infinitely better suited for the roles than McGuire and Dunst (I know... different female, but still better chemistry). Hell, even the extras were good. The casting director should be proud. I hated the 3D. That's not a tall order though as I "dislike" most 3D at best. As such, I was not impressed with the visuals. I could easily make out CGI issues and the 1st-person POV mess made me want to leave the theater. It was like being on the Spiderman ride at Universal... 8 years ago. Horrid. All in all though, I enjoyed the story as much as Spiderman 1 & 2 (we don't speak about 3 in our household), and really got into it (until I was yanked back out by that 1st-person POV BS). I won't add any spoilers so... 7/10 for me.

McWetty on Jul 3, 2012


Hmmm....glad I saw it in 2D! But in all seriousness, I agree with you on the casting--Garfield and Stone were excellent, as was the rest of the cast. I especially liked Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben. This film was a very character-driven film, and I liked that. I didn't have a problem with the VFX, and I thought the CGI worked well for most of the film. The Lizard's CGI wasn't perfect, but you know what? I didn't mind.

Scopedog on Jul 3, 2012


Also loved it, Far better than the original trilogy and Garfield and Stone were infinitely better. I loved the human aspect of the film with peter parker, I thought they added a lot to that side of the film.

Michael Snyder on Jul 3, 2012


so it's mixed reviews so far?

conradthegreat on Jul 3, 2012


They are generally positive from both critics and audience scores. This site's perception is an relative anomaly.

Jeff on Jul 3, 2012


I think Webb has definitely created a successfully stylish version, and I loved watching it. However, I couldn't help but feel that it lacked the heart behind the original trilogy. They made such a big deal in the trailers about it being about finding the secret of his parents and stuff, and then they just kind of drop that plot line completely halfway through. Sometimes they just tried to have too much happening at once, and it resulted in diminishing the emotional appeal. If it weren't for the absolutely fantastic performances by certain actors (won't spoil anything), I would have felt almost nothing when they died. I wished it took a little more time to capture some intimate scenes and keep the audience engaged through subtlety sometimes as (500) Days of Summer did so well. However, all in all, this stems from my great wish that comic book movies are not dismissed as such and instead made with as much care as "regular" movies and can eventually be held in the same esteem. That being said, The Amazing Spider-Man is a FANTASTIC comic book movie.

Preston Beaty on Jul 3, 2012


Sequels, my friend.

Chiroptera Exsanguination on Jul 3, 2012


Spoiler:I'm sorry but this really didn't live up to expectations. Taken by itself it's okay but as a reboot that should have learnt a lot of lessons from the past not so much. Even the romance that was it's best sell felt poorly thought out at times: she takes him to meet her family for a first date? He tells her his secret during that FIRST DATE...I get that he's been in love with her for a while but c'mon...and speaking of his secret one too many people knew by the end of this. I don't think having it be an origin story was necessary either, we know the story. Ah well at least the intro is out of the way, I hope the sequel's better. Disagree as you will...

Daren on Jul 3, 2012


it IS the 21st century...and being a teenager its more probable for him to tell a peer rather than a parent figure...that whole adults don't get it thing... BTW: you ever wondered if Clark Kent was soo peeved about wanting to tell someone his identity he would stop in the middle of dressing in the phone booth to pick to receiver to yell 'HI IM SUPERMAN' before taking off?....

Jericho on Jul 3, 2012


Can't compare Supes with Spidey!

ASB on Jul 10, 2012


Haven't seen it yet but so far from the reviews I've read, there are so many people who have seen it are comparing it to "the original trilogy". When I first read that the re-boot was in the works, I really didn't want to see it based on Spider-man 3 which was just terrible. I will see this movie trying desperately not to compare actors, plot lines, special effects etc. with the previous Spider-man flicks. So far the reviews are 50/50 but worth seeing anyway. I'll let you know!

coolit43 on Jul 3, 2012


See it and judge for yourself. Leave the reviews out of it. If you like it, great--but if you don't, hey, no problem. But you should SEE it first and then decide whether it works or not. I liked the film a lot, but it's inevitable that people will compare it to the previous trilogy.

Scopedog on Jul 3, 2012


I loved it. I thought the cast did a great job, I loved how they used the lizard to bring in Gwen Stacy as a cute nerd rather than just a high school hottie. The first person shots were great and I loved the 3D. I also liked how it followed the comics more closely in my opinion. I can't wait to see more.

bigguynewman on Jul 3, 2012


Finally, a superhero who doesn't sound like he's got a bad case of laryngitis. Seriously, though, the best character-driven superhero movie, only second to "Chronicle."

BeepBeepRichie on Jul 3, 2012


The casting was perfect. Garfield is perfect for Peter/Spidey and made me instantly forget about the awful performance of Maguire in the original trilogy. The relationships and characters were more real, which was refreshing. Of course it had some flaws (with Connors/Lizard), but overall, I much preferred this film than any of the first three. I really don't understand why so many people didn't like it, this is the Spiderman I know and love from the comic books.

Ryan Hancock on Jul 3, 2012


Exactly. By the way, who do you think the mystery guy was at the end, speaking with Dr Connors in prison? Oh, and to answer why so many people didn't like it, the answer is simple: most of 'em never went to see it, just a bunch of Nolan fanboys, threatened by a better story.

BeepBeepRichie on Jul 3, 2012


I'm thinking it's maybe Norman Osborne...but I'm not sure how he would get into the jail cell and then disappeared. But if it is Norman, Gwen Stacy will probably meet her demise in the sequel ๐Ÿ™ I loved this movie so much. I actually felt connected to all of the characters. When Uncle Ben meets his inevitable death, I genuinely felt upset and wanted him to come back. Oh, and the voicemail thing was just killing me.

Ryan Hancock on Jul 3, 2012


Agree on Osborne, as well. Goblin'll prolly be the next villain. Yeah, Ben's voicemail coupled with Peter's backstory were effective devices to get the audience to care about the character.

BeepBeepRichie on Jul 3, 2012


And Ryan you never know that Osborn could of pull off one of those Ra's Al Ghul disappearing acts like what Ra's did in Batman Begins to Bruce Wayne while he was in prison lol

Kron Son on Jul 3, 2012


Haha so true! I heard Rhys Ifans say something in an interview today that it's 100% not Norman Osborne, but it is someone who is working for Osborne. No idea who that could be...

Ryan Hancock on Jul 4, 2012


It could be Mr. Tooms, a.k.a., the Volture.

AnoNi on Jul 4, 2012


"....most of 'em never went to see it, just a bunch of Nolan fanboys, threatened by a better story." I'd say that this is spot-on. Too bad for them--they're missing a great character-driven superhero film.

Scopedog on Jul 3, 2012


Completely agree. That's why I loved it so much, because it was a great character-driven superhero movie. Most movies based on comic book heroes are solely focused on cool action scenes and sacrifice a good story (The Avengers). It was refreshing to see something like this that focuses on the characters.

Ryan Hancock on Jul 4, 2012


Wait, doesn't everybody realize that was Osborn?

Chiroptera Exsanguination on Jul 3, 2012


Way to go Spoiler Boy!

RichieIsADick on Jul 4, 2012


cant really say spoiler when you can clearly see it in a TV spot.....

Jericho on Jul 4, 2012


" I really don't understand why so many people didn't like it, this is the Spiderman I know and love from the comic books." This is what I have been saying to everyone, but then I get ridiculed like I am the moron lol. We know whats up.

HealthyPoison on Jul 4, 2012


Exactly man! This story and the characters in this movie were what the first film should have been. Raimi changed so many things that completely went against everything in the comics. This is nearly spot on with the comic books, and that makes me happy.

Ryan Hancock on Jul 4, 2012


whaaaaaaaat???? which comics did you read man? you're craaaaaazy! none of the comics line up with this movie at all. or the first movie. how come everybody claims to know the story of spider man when they dont have a clue! he was bitten by a radioactive spider. not cross species genetics. and they changed one of the most important things about spiderman. With great power comes great responsibility. they even changed that. all you people "claiming" to know the origin of spiderman are so freaking wrong its rediculous. Im reading the first comic right now and i could tell you about a billion things that dont line up. OR you could go read it for free online somewhere. "this is nearly spot on with the comics" its not even SEMI close. learn your shit before you open your mouth

Josh on Jul 6, 2012


To be fair Roger Corman's lost 1994 Fantastic Four movie was true to the original F.F. comics in a lot of ways that the newer versions weren't but that didn't make it a good version either. Hollywood needs to make changes and updates. That is why we get different versions in the cartoons etc. A radioactive spider simply isn't modern enough so they tweak it a bit. No big nasty there. Some stories have the gunman killing uncle Ben at home in a break in. Others don't. The comics have M.J. on the scene prior to Gwen but it doesn't matter for a 2 hour movie. You simply must trim out the things that you don't have time to build on and focus on making an intelligent film. Gwen had a hairband, go-go boots, sweater top and mini skirt. Wow what an unnecessary but wonderful homage to the comics. The thing I've learned with Hollywood is not to look for and judge by what they got wrong but look for what they got right. X-men in Black leather? For a covert team it makes sense. Look closer...embroidered X's and Wolvey's even has the tiger stripes. Little things. Did you know that the original X-men script had Magneto renamed Prince? Comics have way too much story and histories to condense faithfully into a single movie. There's no time to display the nuances so they will always take short-cuts. Gotta let some things go.

Wild Time Comics on Jul 15, 2012


Yep. You hit it squarely on the head

bithki on Jul 23, 2012


Dude...I think you got Blog-Rage or something...relax. Modern movie so they had to change some things. 65%+ of the people who have seen it never owed a Spidey comic, never read the 1st one and were not even alive when it came out

bithki on Jul 23, 2012


are you insane??? which comics do you read? the other amazing spiderman????? i have damn near every single spiderman comic ever published and never once does he get shot or not have spider sense or need cranes to line up for him to swing thru the city. this spiderman was a travesty and im sorry but you most certainly have NOT read the comics. Spiderman has spider sense. super human strength speed and agility and hes extremely smart already just being peter parker. he was bit by a radioactive spider. dr curt conners never worked for oscorp. he was a professor at NYU where peter was student. ( also he did not need multiple injections to turn into the lizard he was like the hulk, whenever he got angry he transformed) and harry osborn introduces peter to gwen stacey. i could go on for days about how many other things are completely FUCKED about this story line. but i will simply state this. they got spiderman very wrong. how did he not have spidersense? how could he throw a football so hard it bent a goal-post on a football field but yet every other time his strength was in question he was a pussy. spiderman can usually jump about 6 or 7 stories high but in the movie he could barely jump 10 feet. Also they did the worst possible thing in my humble opinion with a superhero movie. superhero is wounded going into final battle with supervillan who is at full strength. lame lame LAME! Why was avengers so successful? it was a bunch of bad asses being BAD ASSES! they were never down and out or pouty pouty. they all just went and kicked ass. I absolutely despise this whole idea of trying to humanize superheroes who arent REAL. so to conclude you are riduculed like a moron because the things you are saying are uneducated and fairly moronic. You do not know "whats up". and before you try and say anything to retort. What if i made a movie about martin luther king junior and he was played by a white guy who had an acid trip and died of a heart attack. but then someone said thats just like the martin luther i remember. this movie suuuuuuuuuucked

Josh on Jul 6, 2012


Is there a doctor in the house? Aisle three, pharmaceuticals.

97point6 on Jul 9, 2012


Being a huge Spidey comic owner, I get exactly what you are saying but... dude.... Take a valium or something....Just a movie and a good one at that.

bithki on Jul 23, 2012


Who was the guy at the end of the movie

rosie on Jul 3, 2012


Yea that was an epic fail. Did not peak my interest in the slightest. Made me think, "oh Avi and Sony want more of my money." No thanks.

Pali on Jul 4, 2012


friggin awesome this is the movie that should have been made years ago... raimis was good when it came out but up against this it reminds me of tim burtons original batman up against this new one... night and day... good in thier day but up against todays, today whoops hands down

dudeabides on Jul 3, 2012


AND once again, a great cast, great special effects, great story, a good time at the movies and instead of just having fun with it Alex Billington has to bitch about it. Try not to let your own personal miseries bring the rest of us down ok dick?

Big Clyve Brewer on Jul 3, 2012


Best Stan Lee cameo yet!! This movie was fantastic! I never liked the first three movies that were made.... The only good things were the villians in the first two movies, and the third one... oooohhhhhh the third one...... well lets just not go there.... Anyways, this was the Spider-man movie that I've been waiting 10 years to see!!!

Spidy-Fan on Jul 3, 2012


I think this was the best comic book movie since The Dark Knight. Definitely the most emotionally charged. I haven't welled up that many times in one movie in... well, maybe ever. Performances were pitch-perfect all the way across the board, especially Garfield, Sally Field, and Martin Sheen. Emma Stone and Rhys Ifans were also great, and even Denis Leary did his part. Marc Webb has a great future ahead of him.

Chiroptera Exsanguination on Jul 3, 2012


I loved it. It was everything Spiderman should be. And the best part, No Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. Garfield and Stone, were awesome. I even loved Leary. Hell, everyone in this movie DID awesome. It was definitely character driven and IMO I think that's what a lot of Superhero movies these days are missing. 8.5/10 I will most likely go see this again. The Avengers, Spiderman and then The Dark Knight Rises to top it all off? This is Definitely the best Summer of Superhero Movies yet.

Rain Spider on Jul 3, 2012


I have to admit I totally freaking enjoyed this film. A HUGE congrats to Marc Webb! And the cast was all fantastic. It had an element of realism that the other movies didn't have (Although I loved the first two of those as well). I would classify this as a different "universe." The fact that comics have so many different universes is what makes them so enjoyable! I can't wait for the sequel!

Ammon Anderson on Jul 3, 2012


The cast was great, but this movie was just so underwhelming. The script sunk this movie for me big time. It was just a big mess storywise, dropping plotlines as it went, the Lizard's actions making no sense, and it was a dull slog when it should've been exciting and compelling. I didn't care about anything going on in this, it just was not engaging for me in the least. It didn't help that all the beats were just so familiar and generic, I'm not talking about the other Spidey flicks, I mean compared to other superhero movies in general. I was rooting for it, it had its moments early on, but in the end this was the biggest letdown of the year for me.

Roy on Jul 3, 2012


This movie is so freaking boring and dumb, i felt like i was dieing.

vic on Jul 3, 2012


But I bet you dug the butlers monologe in Spideer-Man 3... ๐Ÿ˜‰

Ryderup on Jul 4, 2012


seen it twice. mixed feelings. great physical action, excellent casting - story lacking - to many night scenes. I realized that the main problem is that Sony is only invested in the character as an investment. they will ultimately compromise a story thinking it will make more $ rather than getting the little details correct. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief and tell my inner "fanboy" to shut up......but how can Spiderman be snuck up on by the lizard or shot several times when he has Spider sense? I know its being picky but that attention to detail can only come from people who have something at stake other than the bottom line. similar to how Fox has transformed Wolverine from a short hairy psychopath into Dash Riprock. look at how long it took to get the Hulk right. good movie, not great. Spiderman 2 still best.

onebrokesucka on Jul 3, 2012


Spider-sense seemed to be sorely lacking from this movie, how the hell did he get shot in the leg?

axalon on Jul 4, 2012


Didn't Like story just bias of original. Loved the more talking and wise cracks in suit tho. What happened to curtain fam?? It's ok

jonah on Jul 3, 2012


Andrew Garfield > Tobey Maguire Emma Stone > Kirsten Dunst Sally Field > That other Aunt Mae Martin Sheen > Cliff Robertson (but only by a hair) Marc Webb = Sam Raimi Denis Leary = awesome Rhys Ifans Spider Man

Christopher Dutton on Jul 3, 2012


Andrew Garfield > Tobey Maguire Emma Stone = Kirsten Dunst Sally Field = That other Aunt Mae Martin Sheen = Cliff Robertson (but only by a hair) Marc Webb > Sam Raimi Denis Leary = works great, shouldn't have been killed off. Rhys Ifans > Wilem Dafoe

Ryderup on Jul 3, 2012


loved it.

learnhowtocheat on Jul 3, 2012


I was really hesitate about seeing this movie. Before seeing it I felt like I've seen this before why am I wasting my money again but I was surprised. This Spiderman seemed more enjoyable, not cartoony, and just better in every area. It really tried to cover its loose ends. Like other comments here there is a realism, much darker approach and closer to the comics, I think this one follows the Ultimate Spiderman storyline but I'm not a comic expert. Andrew Garfield is superior to Tobey-Depressing-Boring-Maguire and Emma Stone is so much better than Kirsten Dunst for the female lead.

Andrew on Jul 3, 2012


This is one of the greatest superheromovie I've seen. Only problem is, it's sad it had to change things up to not look like a carbon copy of Raimis firts film. Otherwise - great!

Ryderup on Jul 3, 2012


I'll admit I was against the remake from the beginning. I felt it was too soon and I am such a fan of the first two Raimi films, but I totally loved this one. It was great! The cast was superb and it had heart. It left me wanting more and I can't wait to see where else they are going to take this!

Crazy Legs on Jul 4, 2012


I went and watched this with my buddy (we are both in our late 30s) and his 8 year old son and we all liked it a lot! A much more realistic Spider Man.

chjapa on Jul 4, 2012


I liked it more than the other 3 spider-mans combined. Andrew Garfield is a much better Peter Parker than that Emo Bitch Toby Maguire. It did have some holes but overall it was an awesome comic-book movie. It was actually taken from the comic-books and put on the screen. Which I loved but might have also been the reason why there were so many flaws/holes in the story.

Tyler Bannock on Jul 4, 2012


I usually agree with alex on most films, but it looks like we're gonna havta fisticuff on this one. I thought it was freaking spectacular. Everything I ever wanted in a Spider-man film since I was 8 years old was here. More practical effects made it feel so much more real, and the score totally blew Danny elfmans' outa the water. Overall this is definately my favorite spidey film. Not gonna bash the Raimi flicks cuz I know a lot of people like them. They just never really did much for me.

Arnold Shortman on Jul 4, 2012


Webb hasn't eoungh Web a SPIDERMAN with Cheesy & Perfenuctry Action Sequnces I really be wished this win . Lizard was best villain for spidy in my opinion but really pity . I expect see another D.Octapus but Molina's Octapus eat this Lizard. Level of special effect in this one is definiteky uncomparable with raimi's works. I think company after spiderman 3 and changeing Cast&Crew think maybe people wouldn't come for another spidy. But They think wrong and did big mistake. Cast did great job, don't need mention , very obvious. Story is ok but not in size of 1&2 , just stright and plausible. But action is low , un-thrilling and unpleasant. Nothing Shocking, Nothing New. Film walk on romance line instead of focus on Amazing ACTION ADVENTURE Comic Book. Film shows worth of Sam Raimi and prove his True vision to cinematic artful adaption of comics like spiderman. Failure for Mark. I wish best for SEQUEL.

Ehsan Davodi on Jul 4, 2012


"Nothing New. it's a 40-yr old character in a reboot what "new" can you get in there ??? .... "Film walk on romance line instead of focus on Amazing ACTION ADVENTURE Comic Book. " I must also take issue with this , as a lot of the comic storyline deals with MJ AND Gwen Stacey . The action happens AFTER he has to duck MJ , Gwen , Aunt Mae , and/or Jonah -Betty-anyone at the newspaper , etc . Romance has always been a big part ...

Dominic A on Jul 5, 2012


50 years in August. Web Head is the OOOOOOOOOOG

Josh on Jul 11, 2012


Spiderman, serious snooze !

m17 on Jul 4, 2012


I hated it. The first two Spidermans were infinitely better. People saying this one is better have an irrational hate for Tobey and have a case of "what have you done for me lately" with movies. Can't for the life of me see how this one measures up to the first two. I think it appeals more to the REALLY casual movie goers but in terms of people who actually watch good movies in general... this one is a major fail.

Richard Canlas on Jul 4, 2012


I personally found it to be better than all 3 of the original movies. Better cast, better acting, excellent storyline, and I don't have to watch Kirsten Dunst be played off as a sex symbol for two hours. It's really a win win.

Jesse Keim on Jul 4, 2012


I thought the origins in this was good because it took an hour not 30 minutes. But when Peter Parker was getting his powers the fights he went into were a bit of a yawn. Once Rys Ifans was the lizard at the bridge was the time I got interested. B+

Jackmooney9 on Jul 4, 2012


I enjoyed this way too much. It just had so much heart behind it and all performances were perfectly executed. Once you get past the horrible design of the lizard it isn't hard to fall in love with this film. And that's what's also great about it, it's a great "Film" not just a great summer popcorn action flick. I do wish they did a little better with the score though, it just seemed to be lacking a lot. I felt in some scene's (particularly the school fight scene) the music just didn't fit, and honestly I believe that's why a lot of people are sorta iffy about this film, because it's sort of a mental thing, make people realize "something's off about this." Otherwise, Mark Webb was born to make Spiderman.

Danimal on Jul 4, 2012


I liked it a little more than the original series. I love the cast, the acting was phenomenal, but I wasn't all that impressed with the story. The fanboy in me is happy to have a teenaged Spidey, webshooters, and finally having the Lizard on screen, but I expected a little more. That being said, the action scenes (both swinging and fights) were absolutely AMAZING. Webb really knows he's doing. And this Spidey's movements were more fluid and spider-like, so points for that. Overrall, SEE THIS MOVIE.

Lamar on Jul 4, 2012


This movie just makes you appreciate Sam's efforts even more, that trilogy is the Ultimate Spider-man, this one is Embarrassing Spiderman.

Vic on Jul 4, 2012


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


this movie was so dumb every scene made me want to punch a baby in the face. their is nothing amazing about this movie. that scene when he's on the train and "discovers" his powers for the first time was the lamest thing I've ever seen. and they go on and on that he has spider powers, yeah we get it, he has super strength now stop showing him breaking stuff. Also, I love how nobody questions him, I mean he makes it so obvious that he's spiderman. o yeah and the whole death of uncle ben scenario was so dry and uninspiring, where's the whole wrestling scene that made peter wanna try out his powers? o wait it's been reduced to a half assed scenario involving a cashier who throws a fit because peter didn't have 2 cents to buy a milk chug. btw he never caught the guy who killed uncle ben. there's so many things wrong with this film and if any one here is a true spidey fan you would see why. nothing in this movie is accurate to the comics at all. Besides looking like peter parker I couldn't figure out what andrew garfield was trying to go for. is he a nerd? a hipster? a rebellious teen? a bully? a romantic? atleast tobey made it clear he was a socially awkward nerd regardless of how stupid he looks when he cries. since when does gwen have a full family with 3 brothers last time I checked it was just her and her father. speaking of captain stacey why did they make him hate spidey? in the comic books he was the only one who supported spiderman, i mean they lead to that towards the end but then he died. also the count for how many times peter takes his mask off in situations where people can clearly see who he is is ridiculous. and before any of you try to counter my arguments with invalid source material just remember, at the end when spiderman was going to swing to oscorp to stop the lizard and there was tons of buildings he can swing off of and the construction workers thought he can only swing from cranes for some reason while the helicopter shines a path for him heading to the oscorp building was the most dumbest cheesiest lamest thing i've ever seen. id prefer the emo dancing in sm3 than god. this movie sucked major donkey ass.

NickOut on Jul 4, 2012


totally agree bro. you must have a closet dedicated to spidey comics just like me. Spiderman is a pioneer and he made it possible for all these other lame ass wannabe superheroes. theres a reason why his first edition is worth 35000 bux. tell the story right. dont cut corners and your movie will suceed. I had a rant almost exactly the same as yours. good to know that there is at least one other die hard out there

Josh on Jul 11, 2012


Just watched this. garbage. So cliched. Every dang scene is the same old derivative nonsense. I was cringing all the way through.

zedg on Nov 2, 2012


Great movie! I can easily say it makes up for how they killed the last series with Tobey Maguire. I still like Spider-man 2, but it's hard to look at Tobey Maguire after they made him look like a pedifiler in the third film. Also Emma Stone is much better then having to put up with Kirsten Dunst.

ZombA on Jul 4, 2012


Even with the unbelievably silly parts (there was more than a few) and the fairly long running time I thought this was great.

Brian Ricci on Jul 4, 2012


I think its interesting that EVERYONE was ripping on the look of the lizard from the previews, but NOBODY has complained about it now. All you haters that tear up a movie before it's even released SUCK!

Ammon Anderson on Jul 4, 2012


To many Gaps in the store I read the comics and watched the Cartoons growing up so I call bull when I see it I mean flash trying to be buddy buddy with Peter no Mary Jane like at all??? Look I get it they are trying to go somewhere else with the story but come on stick to the orignal story for the most part. To me if u take the story line from the first 2 movies and film it like this one was with this cast and this version of Spider-Man you got gold. P.S that better be Osborn in the end credits and they better find someone great to play this Green Goblin this go around cuz I think they got it right the first time.

Roy Jaboson on Jul 5, 2012


this is coming from a fan of the other Spider-Man films. Once this comes out on DVD, I will probably not watch the other ones. This one perfectly encapsulated the spirit of Peter Parker and (finally) Gwen Stacy. It fit the mood of the comics in seriousness and in humor. The other ones were all about grabbing one's attention, whether that was with special effects or with cheesiness. This one isn't set on making you go "wow"! It is set on giving you an honest account of what would happen if a teenager were to be given these amazing gifts. and it is in that execution that I truly did go "wow"! I love that Peter told Gwen on their first "date". His love for this girl and the excitement he had for his gifts were finally worn on his sleeve. The "romance" between Peter and MJ in the other ones felt stagnant and worn, even though they were together all of an hour before they broke up. sheesh. Gwen Stacy for the win. Can't wait for the sequel.

Joshua Addisson Roach on Jul 5, 2012


if only this version came out before the other three considering it was done right this time. totally agree with joshua though couldnt have said it better. maybe the movie felt forced becuz everyone right away was comparing and being skeptical right of the bat.

mr.enigma on Jul 5, 2012


Better cast than the original trilogy, but story wise, it wasn't all there. What happened to Peter's reaction to Uncle Ben dying? That's suppose to be the difference maker in him becoming Spiderman and taking responsibility for his powers, not him rescuing a kid from a bridge. If they were trying to tell a different story of Spiderman then I guess it works, but I still liked the first 2 Sidey flicks better. Again better casting, and I also like the more natural look of this Spiderman, but besides that this falls short of Raimi's first 2 films.

Nathan on Jul 5, 2012


Awzome ALL THE WAY If only the film had it's take on VENOM AND CANAGE ๐Ÿ˜€

redskulllives on Jul 5, 2012


Amazing indeed. I loved it!

bltzie on Jul 5, 2012


I adored this movie. Spider-Man means so much to me and I'm so happy with it that I can hardly describe what it's done for me. It is every bit the Spider-Man/Peter Parker film I wanted it to be. Marc Webb, please stick around.

Garrett Jamieson DeLozier on Jul 6, 2012


I was pleased with the film overall. First and foremost because unlike Sam Raimi's previous three films, Spider-Man - the character who's name is on the bloody poster, merchandise, etc. - was not shoved into the background (Something I also hope DOES NOT happen in potential sequels. Seriously, Sam Raimi's second film went WAY too far in driving home the idea that Parker's personal life had gone to shit because of his superhero duties) Yes, it re-treads a lot of the same plot points, but thats par-the-course for a reboot. The differences - like Peter actually revealing his identity to Gwen almost immediately - help to put a fresh spin on things. And besides, for what its worth, almost every Spider-Man console game - post Spider-Man 2 - has been that same game with some gameplay tweaks and new coats of graphical paint. Andrew Garfield played both his assigned roles convincingly and made me care more about Peter Parker in the span of one movie than Tobey Maguire did in the span of three. The fanboy side of me was also quite pleased to see a Peter that was brainer (by kitbashing his web-shooters) and more playful (by using his powers to take revenge on Flash for beating him up) Emma Stone put in a solid performance as Gwen Stacey, and my inner comic geek was immensely pleased to see that for once, Mary-Jane Watson was nowhere in sight (For anyone reading who may not know, there's a historical reason for this: Gwen was Peter's very first girlfriend in the original comics, introduced nearly a year BEFORE MJ). Martin Sheen made me give a fuck about Uncle Ben - something Cliff Robertson, as great an actor as he is, never quite accomplished. My only sore points with this film were the following 1. The subplot regarding Uncle Ben's death never went anywhere 2. How poorly-handled Doc Connors was. The chance to really get me invested in the character before sending him on Mr. Lizard's Wild Ride was completely wasted. 3, The mystery of Peter's parents not being explored as much as I would've liked, given that they were rather prominently featured in trailers, and half the stuff alluding to them - something that would've really helped to further set this movie apart from the previous three - is missing from the finished film. But to be fair, everything seems to built for trilogies these days, so I guess they need to leave something for future installments. I hope said missing footage lands on an Extended Blu-Ray Cut. 4. The new Spider-Man costume. Still not entirely sold on it even after all this time.

soul_reaver265 on Jul 6, 2012


I really love this movie. It opened today in Spain, and I was really happy with the results. I still dont know if I like it better than Raimi's take on it. But I liked it a lot!

Carlos Subero on Jul 6, 2012


The movie was truly AMAZING it was everything the first 3 weren't. Well acted and not a cheesy kids movie. Andrew Garfield was a great peter parker. I do agree that it was a little soon for a reboot but it was needed because the toby miguire sam rami moves were awful. This should have been the movie that came out 10 years ago. Then they could just be making sequels but there's no way you could keep making sequels of the Rami movies because they got too awful and ruined the story. Made sandman the killer of uncle ben, and emo spider-man, terrible. Like Batman said this was the hero the world deserved not the abortion that was Rami spider-man

Spider 2012 on Jul 10, 2012


Ram Saimi's 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 villain I ever saw. Tell me one thing apart from acting that was good...Did they told "THE UNTOLD ORIGIN STORY" as written in the posters? Still missing Doc-Oct...! Please stop this reboot stuff. Already the number of sequels are jumping manifold. Studios should bring something refreshing!

ASB on Jul 10, 2012


I gotta ask. Why does everyone compare this movie to the others? two totally different story lines and "spider men" from different universes. Also i would like to add that if you think you know anything about Spider man because you saw Spider man 1,2, 3 or this one you are freaking WRONG! I suppose Abraham Lincoln was actually a vampire hunter........ I hate this direction Marvel is headed where they are trying to make everything from a COMIC book believable. If it ain't broke don't freaking fix it. Spider man turns 50 in august. 50!!!!! also during that time Spider Man merchandise not only completely out-sales ALL of DC comics put together ( take that justice league. friggin wimps ) but also the rest of Marvel comics as well. That streak ended however when Iron Man made a huge jump into popularity with his most recent movie that has now launched the avengers. but even with the recent success of the avengers spider man is still ahead by over 37.8 BILLION if you take away the avengers most successful character ( iron man ). Spider man is an ORIGINAL GANGSTER he paved the way for every single one of these superheroes. His first edition is worth over 35000 dollars. Why would you change or tweak that? People say you cant just tell the same story over and over because it gets stale. Incorrect. If the story is amazing it will never get old. Aka Jesus Christ. Christopher Columbus WWII just to name a few other stories that will never need changing. This movie SUUUUUUCKED waste of my money. There was barely any 3-d at all. I took my glasses off multiple times and unlike other movies that are actually 3-d i could still watch the movie just fine without the glasses. A few blurred posters and pictures in the background every once in a while. Best scene was Stan Lees cameo without question. Everything else in the movie was lacking. I must say the casting was dead on however the director failed at capturing spider man. NO SPIDER SENSE???? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU???? Spider man gets shot twice in this movie. That would be twice more than he has ever been shot in 50 years. if this was a superhero movie about some other fictional character it probably would've great. IVe got two movies comin out soon please go see!! Superman is one. Hes this guy who works for the Taliban and eats a rare element called kryptonite to keep living. hes kinda strong. and another movie called Martin Luther King Jr hes played by a white guy who tripped on acid and died of a heart attack. Exactly the way we all remember it. Marc Webb. Go hang yourself off of one of those cranes you foolishly think spider man needed to swing thru new-york. moron

Josh on Jul 11, 2012


This was from Sony . maybe this the origin of your complaints .

Dominic A on Jul 18, 2012


Pure garbage. Boring. Spiderman without any powers whenever the film needed it (shot? needing help to get to Oscorp?) Absolutely no chemistry at all between Spidey and the girl with a serious lisp (tongue was huge on her)....this was bad. Went to see it in almost empty theater. Yet media says it made millions. Bull.

Guest on Jul 15, 2012

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