So far critics agree the Amazing Spiderman is about average

  • 60 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by joshmightbe (24434 posts) - - Show Bio

None have said its a terrible movie, but they haven't exactly been heaping praise on it either. The general consensus seems to be, Wait for it to hit netflix cause 3D is too damned expensive to waste the money on a Meh movie.

#2 Posted by cattlebattle (12579 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't really care what critics say....so I'm going to remain optimistic. 
 
I would never go see a movie in 3D anyways, unless the film is specifically 3D, I don't see the point of it.

#3 Posted by Strider92 (16023 posts) - - Show Bio

I guess it depends on your sources as Rotten Tomatoes has it at 75% which for them is pretty high considering what the ratings normally are but i've seen others who have rated it lower. So i'm going to see it an judge for myself :)

Online
#4 Posted by joshmightbe (24434 posts) - - Show Bio

I'll probably hit up a 2d matinee cause I'm too much of a geek to avoid even the worst of super hero movies (Tho I did walk out of Ghost Rider 2 about a half hour in)

#5 Posted by Remi (613 posts) - - Show Bio

That's good to hear (:

#6 Posted by Nova`Prime` (4156 posts) - - Show Bio

Yeah I don't trust critics all that much, many of them tend to be movie snobs. I am not looking for the movie to be great or ground breaking, I am looking to be entertained.

#7 Posted by JoseDRiveraTCR7 (1005 posts) - - Show Bio

Not surprised. The movie didn't look like much from the trailers.

.@Nova`Prime` said:

Yeah I don't trust critics all that much, many of them tend to be movie snobs. I am not looking for the movie to be great or ground breaking, I am looking to be entertained.

Many of them are looking for a movie that's entertaining as well. What you should do is find a reviewer that shares your taste and follow them because when they give a movie a positive or negative review you'll know that there's a good chance that you'll feel the same way.

#8 Posted by joshmightbe (24434 posts) - - Show Bio

I generally wait for the Spill.com review they're about 50/50 but its always an entertaining review

#9 Posted by Video_Martian (5631 posts) - - Show Bio

I know that this movie won't be that great overall, but I just want to be entertained...

#10 Posted by joshmightbe (24434 posts) - - Show Bio

BTW the movie tie in game spoils a crap load of plot points from the movie so if that sort of thing bothers you I'd wait to get it

#11 Posted by Kallarkz (3303 posts) - - Show Bio

What critics?  
Where? 
All critics everywhere? 
 
"Misleading titles for $200 Alex"

#12 Posted by NEEK_03 (1200 posts) - - Show Bio

@JoseDRiveraTCR7 said:

Not surprised. The movie didn't look like much from the trailers.

.@Nova`Prime` said:

Yeah I don't trust critics all that much, many of them tend to be movie snobs. I am not looking for the movie to be great or ground breaking, I am looking to be entertained.

Many of them are looking for a movie that's entertaining as well. What you should do is find a reviewer that shares your taste and follow them because when they give a movie a positive or negative review you'll know that there's a good chance that you'll feel the same way.

Yeah i agree, i mean critics raved about "Brave" and i mean it was ok, i have seen better pixar movies that got lower raitings. also they critics were not so HYPED on the avengers either and it was damn near perfect. im stayin optimistic just like --> @cattlebattle

#13 Posted by joshmightbe (24434 posts) - - Show Bio

@Kallarkz: most of the reviews I've read say its just an Okay movie not great, not awful just Okay

#14 Posted by SpideyIvyDaredevilFan26 (5720 posts) - - Show Bio

Tobey Maguire will always be Spider-Man for me, just as Heath Ledger will always be Joker, MCD will always be Kingpin, and Hugh Jackman will always be Wolverine. This new Spider-Man better blow me away, or it's a wild miss in my book. Bang or bust, there is no in between for me.

#15 Edited by nickzambuto (12639 posts) - - Show Bio

@NEEK_03 said:

@JoseDRiveraTCR7 said:

Not surprised. The movie didn't look like much from the trailers.

.@Nova`Prime` said:

Yeah I don't trust critics all that much, many of them tend to be movie snobs. I am not looking for the movie to be great or ground breaking, I am looking to be entertained.

Many of them are looking for a movie that's entertaining as well. What you should do is find a reviewer that shares your taste and follow them because when they give a movie a positive or negative review you'll know that there's a good chance that you'll feel the same way.

Yeah i agree, i mean critics raved about "Brave" and i mean it was ok, i have seen better pixar movies that got lower raitings. also they critics were not so HYPED on the avengers either and it was damn near perfect. im stayin optimistic just like --> @cattlebattle

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/brave_2012/

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/marvels_the_avengers/

Brave is the lowest rated Pixar movie other than Cars 2, whereas Avengers got into the 90 percentile.

EDIT: That said, I hate Rotten Tomatoes.

#16 Posted by NEEK_03 (1200 posts) - - Show Bio

@nickzambuto:

Well I was talking in terms of actual critics, not rotten

tomatoes.

#17 Posted by Tyrus (1083 posts) - - Show Bio

You know, critics are comparing this to Batman Begins a lot - I hate it. People are saying that even though the film was good, it was a "pointless" reboot unlike Batman Begins - I understand what they're saying, but Batman to me is a more relatable character when you think of the modern world today - Be honest, Spidey is actually a hard character to pull off, so I don't know why critics can't cut Spidey some slack...

#18 Posted by joshmightbe (24434 posts) - - Show Bio

@Tyrus: Spiderman is an awkward dude with money trouble Batman is a billionaire who excels at everything how is that relatable? and don't give me the super power argument because that has the absolute least to do with relatability as far as I'm concerned

#19 Posted by RedOwl_1 (1664 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm trying to be positive about this ^.^ plus, What can be worst than Spiderman 3? and even this movie remind me of Spiderman 2 (admit it the "guy I look up to is the bad guy" is kinda a cliché) I think this can be better and even better than Spiderman itself, Why? Because if something bothered me about the hole saga is that "Oh my life it's sh*t" Parker, without it I'm surely going to enjoy A LOT MORE, Because I like my Spidey positive and damn funny though his live isn't perfect....or good....or average , and if this movie gives me what I'm seeking then it's a bit beyond average to me, even if I haven't seen it :D

#20 Posted by TheTimShow (78 posts) - - Show Bio

@Cattle Battle: I agree, paying almost twice the ticket cost just to see "3-D" is insane. I can't even tell the difference in 90% of the movie accept for maybe one scene. It also tends to hurt my eyes and wearing perscription lenses, the 3-d glasses don't fit correctly. Go non-hd and save money.

#21 Posted by BlackArmor (6133 posts) - - Show Bio

@mr.obvious said:

I know that this movie won't be that great overall, but I just want to be entertained...

this

#22 Posted by BatWatch (2349 posts) - - Show Bio

IMDB has The Amazing Spiderman as a 7.8. That's well above average. It's also better than the rating for Spiderman 2 which is generally regarded as the best in the Rami series.

Critics are snobs, but I usually find the IMDB ratings to be fairly reliable...at least for big releases. You can get some weird praise on niche releases off IMDB.

#23 Posted by Tyrus (1083 posts) - - Show Bio

@joshmightbe: No no no no no no no no and no - dude, what I meant was, that Spidey is a hard character to pull off because he's a teenage superhero ya know? Like Stan Lee once said, usually teenage heroes play the role of a sidekick - And what I meant by Batman being more relatable, is because the way he's being played out in Nolan's series - Chris Nolan made me see how easy Batman can be incorporated into modern times with his films.

#24 Posted by Jotham (4564 posts) - - Show Bio

That's better than I was expecting from most critics. I'm still seeing it. One trailer I just saw was epic, despite that weird half second of action fading to black twenty times in a row thing every commercial is doing now.

#25 Posted by ReVamp (22863 posts) - - Show Bio

Going to watch it cause I don't care.

#26 Posted by cellot (80 posts) - - Show Bio

@Tyrus: Spiderman may be more difficult to handle, but they chose to make another Spiderman movie. That's a concern of the writer, producer, etc. before the film gets made. If Spiderman is difficult to handle, maybe it's a bad idea to reboot the successful franchise. Once it's made, critics can only evaluate it.

Personally, I thought the 2002 Spiderman was a decent flick and wasn't in need of a reboot (as opposed to Hulk (2003) which I hear sucked). That's the other problem: Spiderman has to contend with himself. The 2002 film had the advantage of being able to give us everything as new and innovative: the sequences of spidey swinging in the building for example: they were breathtaking because the audience hadn't seen anything like that. If this film is slightly better than 2002 version at building swinging, we as an audience won't be impressed. That's true for everything: conflict with Harry Osborn? Well is it better thand it was in the Raimi trilogy? No? Boring!

There's a very real problem there, and the decision to reboot Spiderman is all on the creative team (or producers or whoever decided to make this movie).

#27 Posted by Onemoreposter (3864 posts) - - Show Bio

I'll go see the new Spidey opening weekend for no other reason than this

Plus the trailers don't look bad, and Rhys Ifans is a BAMF.

#28 Posted by Gambit1024 (9890 posts) - - Show Bio

The 3D in the trailer looked pretty distracting and made me sick during the web-swinging, so I'm not surprised. Still, I'm looking forward to seeing it regardless.

#29 Posted by ReVamp (22863 posts) - - Show Bio

Oh, and he's going to be funny.

#30 Posted by Deadcool (6809 posts) - - Show Bio
I hope I would enjoy this movie.
#31 Posted by sinestro_GL (3030 posts) - - Show Bio

We'll wait and see.

If you like it, like it. If not, don't. I tend not to care what critics say - today, they tend to be hugely pretentious

#32 Posted by oraclefyre (936 posts) - - Show Bio

It might be a good movie, but I don't think it will be as good or established as it's predecessor trilogy.

#33 Posted by Skyfire (704 posts) - - Show Bio

I try not to read reviews before seeing a movie.

#34 Posted by nickzambuto (12639 posts) - - Show Bio

I know this movie will be awesome, critics can STFU.

#35 Posted by Video_Martian (5631 posts) - - Show Bio

@nickzambuto said:

I know this movie will be awesome, critics can STFU.

LOL

#36 Posted by cloudzackvincent (1026 posts) - - Show Bio

i saw the movie yesterday, and i found it pretty entertaining...with an emotional touch.... and the cast makes it fresh and interesting.. and to me andrew garfield felt like a better spiderman than tobey maguire... and a lot of critics have given it great reviews... many critics from prominent magazines like the holllywood reporter, variety, entertainment weekly, associated press have all given it great reviews... plus it holds a 80 % rating on rotten tomatoes.. which is pretty high...so i dont see how it is getting mediocre reviews...

#37 Posted by WeWatchedAMovie (35 posts) - - Show Bio
#38 Posted by Video_Martian (5631 posts) - - Show Bio

Watching it today, hope it's as good as I've been hearing.

#39 Edited by Tyrus (1083 posts) - - Show Bio

The critics that are reviewing Spider-Man are just being smart asses trying to gain attention - "The Amazing Spider-Man reboot, not so amazing" or "Another pointless reboot" is all I hear. I just saw Spider-Man and it wasn't amazing, it was fantastic - the cast was great and so was the action - besides most of these critics that are saying the film is bad, haven't even picked up one Spider-Man comic so they shouldn't be talking jack in the first place. I will say the plot had a few similarities to the original but I've noticed that the plot being too "similar" is all critics have to say bad about the film, then they dramatize their statement and make it longer to try and make it sound like the whole movie sucked itself... Well, they're officially retarded (hope I could say that), critics keep on comparing this film to Nolan's Batman series and it's pissing me off, just because they like the dark and gritty aspect of those films they expected it from Marvel, I am literally sick of that - Then they go back to saying how pointless this reboot was... Well critics, just take a look at the coming Man of Steel - is that gonna be pointless too or are you going to like it because it will have a wittle bitty drop of dark and gritty to it? Superman returns came out 6 years ago - the fact that another Superman film is coming out next year should be taking the same criticism The Amazing Spider-Man is having for coming out too soon as well - AND, not to mention that if DC is going to compete with Marvel and make a Justice League film with an entire reboot with ANOTHER rebooted Superman and Batman in 2014/15, then hopefully that would shut critics up and just learn to deal with reboots...

#40 Posted by OracleX (294 posts) - - Show Bio

I thought this review was fairly accurate.

http://www.themarysue.com/review-the-less-than-amazing-spider-man/

There is nothing bad about this movie. It just wasn't that memorable. The movie may have gotten better reviews if it premiered later in the year when it wouldn't have been competing against The Dark Knight Rises and The Avengers for attention.

#41 Posted by vidman_raj (6 posts) - - Show Bio

This movie was amazing, critics dont know anything...

#42 Posted by TheCommissar (143 posts) - - Show Bio

@OracleX said:

I thought this review was fairly accurate.

http://www.themarysue.com/review-the-less-than-amazing-spider-man/

There is nothing bad about this movie. It just wasn't that memorable. The movie may have gotten better reviews if it premiered later in the year when it wouldn't have been competing against The Dark Knight Rises and The Avengers for attention.

Yeah, that seems about right. It was good, but it has trouble standing out amongst the other superhero movies of the time. Certainly better than the first three movies, however.

#43 Edited by xybernauts (858 posts) - - Show Bio

I think the critics are right. The movies did something's right, but to me it fell a long way short of being amazing. I liked the casting, with the exception of Aunt May and Uncle Ben. The cinamatogrphy was great also, but the special F/X and story were severely lacking. I mean I think the F/X of Raimi's was way more awe-inspiring. A stunt man just doesn't cut it. But my biggest problem was the story. Spoilers What happens to Parker's quest to find out more about his parents? Midway, they just abandoned the story. This subplot was supposed to be the icing on the cake that could have made this movie awesome, but instead they just short changed the audience by never addressing this intergral part of the story. Also they really didn't need to rehash the origin story of Spiderman, particularly since this alternate origin wasnt really good. They could have spent the time addressing the question of what happened to Parker's parents.

#44 Posted by cloudzackvincent (1026 posts) - - Show Bio

well it has been officially stated that, that particular plot has been left to be resolved in the sequel which is coming out on 2014

#45 Posted by xybernauts (858 posts) - - Show Bio

I assumed as much, but to me that's no excuse. That's the kind of approach that ruins movies. There should have been some type of conclusion regarding Peters parents. Then if they wanted they could expand the plot in future sequals, but to abandon the plot altogether is just bad storytelling.

#46 Posted by JonesDeini (3619 posts) - - Show Bio

Thought it was about the same as First Class. Solid film with some very strong performances but some things that hold it back from being great. Look forward to the sequel.

#47 Posted by ltbrd (557 posts) - - Show Bio

I love how people are getting on this film for "not keeping its promise on presenting an untold story" when in fact it did just that. We have never know just who Peter's parents are or why they disappeared. Oh there has been speculation and even some What If...? style stories about them but nothing officially canon. Even when his "parent's" returned, they were just advanced androids created by Chameleon with a made up story. So the fact that this fikm establishes a definitice story for them is completely original. We now know his father worked for Oscorp, was working with Conners, was studying spiders as a way to stabiluze their formula, presumably died in a car crash. None of this was known before and if we read into the film a bit more (and if you've played the game) then we can take away another movie-only plot detail.....that Richard Parker may have experimented on or in some way modified his own on as part of his research (thus explaining why Peter remains human in light of his new abilities). These are completely new ideas and themes from anything the comics or previously films presented so while the plotline of Richard and Mary is not over, it did fulfill its job of presenting a completely new origin and subplot for future films. I wish people could look at subtext and small hints rather than say something is bad because they didn't get an answer shoved in their face. And yes, before anyone starts, getting the hints does require more knowledge of the comics than most people may have but thecsame is true of all the other Marvel films and look how well those have been doing. For the non-comic book or non-Spider-Man reader they don't care anyways about a secret origin. But for those that have followed Spider-Man for years we get a treat in seeing a new take in characters that we actually have never known anything about and have the opportunity to learn more in follow-on films. As for the question of this thread.....I always go with Fandango fan reviews over critics or website reviews andvthey haven't let me down so far. Per the fans the rating is "Go" (the second best rating for a film) with more people voting Go or Must Go than any other rating. So those that have seen it are telling me its good and I'm going to trust the general audience over a film critic because critics focus far too much on small details and tend to escue towards films that are more "artful" than straight up entertaining. ASM is not an artful film so I'll take the man on the streets word on it over a critics.

#48 Posted by FearTheLiving (2321 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm still hoping it'll fail really just want Sony to lose the rights. Still have yet to actually see the movie though so I have no idea if I'd even like it yet.

#49 Posted by The Stegman (22705 posts) - - Show Bio
Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker>>>>> Tobey's Peter Parker.
#50 Posted by cloudzackvincent (1026 posts) - - Show Bio

@The Stegman said:

Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker>>>>> Tobey's Peter Parker.

agreed!!

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.