July 2, 2012


The Amazing Spider-Man is intended to be a new origin story about a powerless kid who got superpowers and became hero.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t know which origin story to tell, nor does it understand what it means to be “powerless”.  Wrapped up in the notion of being “grittier” and “realistic”, Marc Webb‘s reboot attempts to spin a fresh new vision for the wall-crawler, but it constantly forgets the story its trying to tell by getting tangled up in lazy coincidences and idiotic character motivations.  The film’s problems are further compounded by the woefully miscast Andrew Garfield, who carries the sweet, good-hearted nature of Peter Parker, but none of the powerlessness that makes us root for him.  What works in the film—the visuals, set pieces, the performances, and the score—work wonderfully, but everything else in the movie is far from amazing.

The Amazing Spider-Man is a movie that’s constantly chasing plotlines.  In this telling, Peter has been haunted by the disappearance of his parents since he was a boy.  One day, he finds his father’s old briefcase, which leads him to search for answers at Oscorp Laboratories.  There, he wanders into an unguarded room (instead of using door locks or retina scans; Oscorp uses touch-based memory puzzles), gets bitten by a genetically-mutated spider (the room is filled with them), and develops his super-speed, agility, reflexes, and strength.  Peter is driven to further investigate his parents’ disappearance, until it’s time to catch the guy who killed Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen).  Peter then hones his crime-fighting abilities by fighting people who resemble his Uncle’s killer before realizing that maybe he should go after all criminals.  Meanwhile, amputee Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who was a friend of Peter’s father (Campbell Scott), is genetically mutating animals to unlock the secret of regeneration.  Naturally, scientific investigation can only lead to horrible things, so Connors regrows his arm only to then transform into a beastly giant reptile known as “The Lizard”.  The movie then twists itself in knots to keep making Spider-Man and the Lizard fight.


And the fights are terrific, as are all the action scenes in The Amazing Spider-Man.  Webb has taken the visual energy and imagination he brought to his previous film, (500) Days of Summer, and weaved an entertaining spectacle that takes full advantage of 3D to craft some truly memorable set pieces.  It’s enthralling to see Spider-Man shoot his way through cramped spaces before swinging into the open night sky of New York City.  Another great scene has Spidey bouncing up and down the corridors of his high school, firing webs left and right, as he tries to fend off the Lizard.

Unfortunately, there’s no good reason for Spider-Man and the Lizard to fight at the high school.  Superficially, The Amazing Spider-Man can deliver an exciting ride, but the story is a mess.  The Lizard’s master plan doesn’t require him to take time out of his busy villain-schedule to go down to the high school and start fighting with Spider-Man.  If anything, it’s a distraction.  But the movie needs another action scene, and so it gets one, and it’s a good one, but it’s a pointless one.  The movie is constantly skipping ahead and taking shortcuts so it can get to where it needs to be.  It gets so bad that at one point, a minor character moves machinery in order to physically get Spider-Man where he needs to be.  This kind of sloppy writing means that the plot and character motivations in The Amazing Spider-Man don’t evolve; they simply change directions and then forget about what was happening before.  A boy’s search for his missing parents is set up as the heart of this story, and then it’s simply left by the wayside until we’re reminded about it in a scene that takes place in middle of the end credits.


Amazing Spider-Man is clearly set up as a smaller, more intimate look at the character while trying to eschew blockbuster bombast in a way that makes Webb’s movie look almost like it’s in direct opposition to Sam Raimi‘s big, happy, four-color Spider-Man trilogy.  Webb’s movie is supposed to be about the “man” behind the Spider-Man, except the man behind Peter Parker is the wrong man.  Andrew Garfield does a wonderful job at conveying the sweetness and inherent goodness of the character, but he can’t get past one gigantic obstacle: he looks like Andrew Garfield.  In the film’s attempt to make Peter more modern and realistic, they’ve fallen into a paradox where they have to acknowledge that geeks are now considered “cool”, but Peter is still a geek.  Raimi nerded-up Tobey Maguire to play Peter Parker, but Garfield looks like he could just be skateboarding home from a GQ photo shoot.  We never believe for a second that Peter is a powerless outsider, so when he gets his powers, it doesn’t feel like a boon for the teenager.  If a powerless kid got a little power drunk in a realistic setting, it would be charming and a bit dark (like half of Chronicle).  But here it just makes Peter come off like a bully and someone who doesn’t deserve the great power that’s been foisted upon him.

Garfield almost escapes the problematic character on the page through the strength of his performance, especially when he shares the screen with Emma Stone, who plays Peter’s love-interest, Gwen Stacy.  The female lead is one area where The Amazing Spider-Man clearly trounces Raimi’s films.  Whereas Mary Jane always felt like the damsel-in-distress, Gwen is smart, funny, and resourceful.  We never think of her as someone who needs saving, and while the film is content to brood over a variety of other relationships, it keeps the romance between Peter and Gwen upbeat.  There simply isn’t enough of it, and there’s definitely not enough of Stone who gets the film’s funniest moments.


In a better cut of the film, there would be more time devoted to letting Peter and Gwen’s romance provide some aspect of levity, but The Amazing Spider-Man is chained to blockbuster action and pretentions of gritty realism.  Instead, it gets the worst of both worlds.  The gritty realism drains the film of lightheartedness and humor, and the terrific performances from Garfrield, Stone, and Sheen are overshadowed by a story that has to explain every piece of Spider-Man’s origin to the point where it feels like there’s a deleted scene showing how Spidey can stick to walls despite wearing gloves and shoes.  The momentum is drained by over-explanation, and then it has to speed up in a sloppy fashion to get to a big action scene.  When one character casually points out a Doomsday device that the company just leaves unguarded in the middle of the office, we’re torn between laughing and cringing.

The movie continues to try and outrun this narrative nonsense until it’s finally consumed by a laughably ridiculous third act where contrivances and new motivations overwhelm the viewer to the point where the film’s positive aspects aren’t enough to save the day.  When you see Spider-Man battling a giant reptile on top a skyscraper to save the city from a convenient Doomsday device, you can’t help but wonder, “Wasn’t this movie supposed to be about a powerless kid trying to find out what happened to his parents?”  I guess it’s easy to get distracted when you can swing through the air with the greatest of ease.

Rating: C


Around The Web
  • NicK

    I’ve developed something called the Goldberg scale; take Goldberg’s grade and move it up by one grade level, this is the actual quality of the film. Unless the review is overwhelmingly ecstatic.

    • Eric Nixon

      HA! I was going to say the same thing. Since Goldberg gave the film a “C” – I can predict that I’ll give it a B+ at worst.

    • Joshua Wilburn

      That would mean TED is an A. Which really, it diserved a B. I usually agree with him because I have the same taist in film, mostly focusing on the script. But if he doesnt give DKR an A then I’ll join you and the hoards over angry village people with pitchforks and torches.

      • Mulvi

        Why must he give the Dark Knight Rises an A? Have you seen it and know that it is truly a great movie worthy of the highest marks? What if it isn’t? I find it truly astounding that people are going to take a critic, whose job it is to give their opinion, to task for having an opinion contrary to their preconceived notions about a movie which they haven’t seen. This is idiocy worthy of today’s Republican Party.

      • Diashi

        That’s really premature to say. Have you seen TDK? Just in case no one has noticed, the film is getting over-hyped – clearly.

        This was a fine review. Come to acknowledge and appreciate reviews that are honest, constructive and objective. We could always use more of them.

      • RamItOn

        From the mispronunciation of the word “corpsman” during a Memorial Day speech to arguing before the Supreme Court that the ACA penalty -is- a tax while telling the American People that it -isn’t-, I’d say today’s Democrat Party has its share of morons. Republicans are generally spineless, not stupid. Get your facts straight.


    dad works for shield and lizard can control powers at the end. get lost remakes

  • Lance

    Matt, you spoiled the entire movie in the first sentence of your review by revealing this was an origin story. That was a poor decision on your part. Once again, I implore you to visit Roger Ebert’s website to…

    Nah, I’m just yanking your chain. Way not to spoil the whole movie in the first sentence this time! I salute you, sir!

    • Sprinkles!

      You’re kidding, right? You say you are, but then again say that Matt spoiled the movie. It’s always been advertised as an origin story. Always. That’s no surprise. Not sure what you mean. Regardless, we got free tix to see this mess and so happy we didn’t pay for it. It’s dreadful. The entire cast is miscast. The motivations and relationships are shallow. Lt holes everywhere. Plot threads are started and forgotten. The death of Uncle Ben is completely mishandled. The Lizard looks awful. Rhys Ifans is a joke and a paper thin villain. Just a total trail wreck. And, it’s failing at the BO. It only pulled in $7.5mill @ midnight showing, which is embarrassing, considering Avengers made $17.5mil and SM3 made $7.5 (with lower ticket prices and no 3D). It’ll make a little money, of course. But, it’s gonna be humiliatingly low profit margin for Sony. It’s getting beaten by Madagascar 3 overseas!

  • Christian

    Does this guy like any movies?

    • Old Soldier

      Sure, If this was made in France he’d give it an A++++++ and it would sooooo original and “in depth and emotional”

  • Mpulse

    Not Surprised

  • This Guy

    That’s disappointing … I’ll still watch and judge for myself. Though I’m not surprised that it’s getting mixed reviews. Judging by the trailer and the clips, I’m not overly thrilled with Garfield’s performance. He doesn’t come off right to me for some reason, something is just off. Still better than Tobey though.

  • Nick Hart

    poor matt goldberg :( he literally has no capacity to find entertainment in entertainment anymore. such a sad life

  • Ryan George

    I skipped the part where he reviewed it.

    • The Dude


  • Tim

    Matt has publicly said on youtube that he does not read comments on his reviews. That’s too bad.

    It seems like nothing pleases him.

  • caro

    the movie is released this week in France and some reviews share the same point of view

  • Tim

    Matt doesn’t read the comments on his reviews…

  • Sugreev2001

    I pity you,Matt Goldberg.You’ve become a typical hipster “critic”.Dumb as a chalkboard,but you have to scream from the rooftops so that people take you seriously.

    • Underground Anthem TX

      What didn’t you like about the review, Sugreev? Specifics? Otherwise, your post comes off as typical hipster faux-outrage.


  • enzofloc

    why don’t the matt-haters just go along their merry way and STFU

  • SP1234

    Don’t have Goldberg do press interviews ever again. Cause he’ll take what the actors said and use it against them. Andrew was so passionate about the role and as soon as I saw “miscast Andrew Garfield”, I knew immediately he was taken advantage of in his interview. So sad.

    • Underground Anthem TX

      Your post doesn’t make any sense. Are you upset about the review? It’s just one dude’s opinion on a movie. Agree or disagree, that’s about it.

      Or are you upset about an interview the reviewer had with one of the cast members during the presser? Did he say something to the actor that was out of line?

      I guess what I’m trying to say is, WHAT THE F— ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

  • Felix

    I liked it better than you did. But you’re spot on several points. The Emma Stone/Garfield chemistry is wonderful here. Wish we had more scenes with them.

    I’ll take Garfield’s Peter Parker over Maguire’s as well.

    P.S- It’s strange. But some scenes from the Trailer don’t appear in the Final film.

    • Hunter

      Yeah, I just saw it and maybe I missed it but that one part from the trailer where dr. connors is like “you want answer come and get it” or whatever I didn’t see in the film

  • Wildcat

    There’s probably a drinking game out there where people read Matt Goldberg’s reviews, then drink every time he writes, “Unfortunately, (insert film or director) doesn’t know how to (fill in the blank).”

  • Teejay

    Honestly, and the biggest thing for me in this movie is I want to see him get his suit. That is what I hated about Raimi’s was you never see how he makes it or how he gets it. Sounds retarded I know, but thats what I loved with batman begins anything you wanted to know about that suit is explained.

  • Truth

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie website where 90% of the people who visit do nothing but bitch and complain about the people running it. If you don’t like these guys, why do you keep coming here???

    • Nik


  • bat63245

    “the film’s problems are further compounded by the woefully miscast Andrew Garfield”

    stopped reading there. Garfield is perfect for this role.

    • Reymundo Salao

      except that his hair looks like a bird’s nest helmet

    • Squire

      Yeah, Garfield being miscast is an outlier opinion. The one constant in almost evert review of TASM so far has been the fact that Garfield (and the majority of the cast) is well cast.

  • ozzie

    Matt sees problems with story lines, acting, and production from a technical aspect that the public and most movie goers don’t see. He knows formulas that add up what makes a good movie, bad movie, or even a great movie.

    People like myself watch movies for emotional reasons that have nothing to do with technical movie making. I don’t care how a scene was shot or put together if it makes me laugh, cry, jump, or make me afraid. I am apparently an odd person because i laugh at points in movies that others don’t.

    I can’t trash what Matt has said in his review because I haven’t seen the movie (tomorrow at 11am is my ticket time). I just know I never see eye to eye with him but that’s because we see movies through different eyes and a very different point of view.

    This is my movie of the summer and I will probably see it a couple times because i love spiderman and andrew garfield. I guarantee at some point in the movie when Peter figures out what he has become and steps up to be the hero he’s destined to become i will probably cry a bit.

    I hope it does well at the box office so I will get more of the Spiderman story and Matt can tell us why they are so bad … it’s a balanced universe :)

    • Daniel

      As a fellow reviewer, though, I see a disturbing trend in Matt’s reviews. He seems determined to find negatives when there are none and it comes across like is trying to justify his pre-conceived notions.

      Also, making cracks like the comment about Andrew Garfield “looking like Andrew Garfield” is rather unprofessional.

      Matt does make some good points in his reviews but I find them to be overly pedantic and Matt comes off as someone trying to sound educated / sophisticated and instead just comes off as mean-spirited.

      Unfortunately, the only things I ever learn from Mr. Goldberg’s reviews is that I’m pretty sure that I’d dislike him if I knew him in real life.

      And I know, the answer is to stop reading his reviews. I do need to pay more attention to the name on the article before I click, that’s for sure.

      • Robert Downey

        I liked this review. It was good. However Matt does have some problems with negativity.

  • J.R.

    why this movie has to be perfect for some people here? is juts a review that’s all, if you want to judge other people opinion wait until you see the movie and then comeback here and post your comments…………..

  • buck

    Mr. Goldberg in order to truly enjoy a movie please remove the stick out of your anus; I promise that movies will be a hell of a lot more enjoyable, that said if Mr. Goldberg here disapproves of a movie that’s how I’ll know that its worth watching.

  • Reymundo Salao

    I think Matt is spot on in this review.
    Have you guys already watched the movie?
    I have.
    The Amazing Spider-man does look like it was only aimed to please one demographic: Twilight teens.
    If you were a kid under 10, you might find the movie boring, if you were over 20, it might feel satisfactory, and if you were over 30, it kinda gets annoying. It’s the teenagers who would relate and adore this movie.

  • sense 11

    I absolutely hated Sam Raimis trilogy so I’m going to see this Spiderman tomorrow with no expectations.

    I don’t want my Spiderman to be a whiny pu$$y that cries every 3 scenes, that’s what Raimi gave us, this review seems to confirm that element is not in this movie and for one am very happy about that.

    • Joe

      “I don’t want my Spiderman to be a whiny pu$$y that cries every 3 scenes, that’s what Raimi gave us, this review seems to confirm that element is not in this movie”

      ROFL! You’ve got another thing comin’ son!
      Enjoy the raw emotion of Andrew Garfield. :)

      • sense 11

        well i already bought the damn ticket so I’m gonna have to see it lol

        i am still fairly confident that it wont have a dance number like Spiderman 3, that was the low point of that trilogy

  • michael

    An educated guess about what this film is trying to do is attract an audience that is different to the existing fans. That is to say that converting a comic book into a movie means having to compromise the comic book elements which comic book readers would recognise and make a movie which movie goers can connect with. I don’t think this movie is aimed at people that are experts on comic book characters. I would imagine any comic book nerd that sees this movie will say the same as the author of the above review. We are not at all interested in comic books. Movies are one thing and comics are something else. How many adults do you know that read comics,really?. The fact that the lead actor doesnt come off as nerdy as the lead means a “normal” audience can connect or relate to peter parker. Why make a movie that attracts all those social losers that spend their adult lives reading comics, these people are a bunch of freaks. The Amzing Spiderman will not attract 100s of millions of dollars and it is not supposed to. It is designed for ordinary people who like to watch movies. Sam raimi made spiderman to please to geeks that read comic books. This latest effort is to repel those types of people. If they do watch it, who knows they might move out of their parents basement, grow up and get a life. Why comic book fans expect peter parker to be a social lepper is because “they” can relate to that. Lets face it ,what is the point of that ?. Do we really want our kids to grow up using geeky peter parker as a role model, no we do not. We want our kids to grow up and be normal. Reading the above review makes me wonder if the author lives in the real world. Geeky peter parker is “not” a good role model. Maybe the author should think about the real life implications and stop living in some fantasy world.

  • James

    I like reading everyones comments about Matt’s reviews. I agree with most everybody else. I didn’t read this review. I haven’t been reading his reviews. And I wont read any in the future. To me it seems like he has to be that critic who says differently what everyone else is saying about a film. It’s his opinion though and thats that. I already bought my tickets for the 4th and I can;t wait. I think it’s going to be a very solid film.

  • Pingback: THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN Sequel News, Plus Two New Posters()

  • Pingback: THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN Sequel News, Plus Two New Posters()

  • tarek

    Agreed 100% with Matt. What makes me reluctant to watch this reboot was well summarized in this review.
    I will watch it tomorrow anyway. It will cost me 5 buck to make my own opinion, even if I’ll not be that thrilled. Never been satisfied with the casting of Andrew Garfield. Don’t know why…It’s just he can’t be Peter.

    • Joe

      “…even if I’ll not be that thrilled. ”

      @Tarek – I’m afraid you won’t be disappointed. :P

      I too went in with an open mind after some initial hesitation. Let’s just say that the initial negativity was founded.

      Anyway, try and have fun anyway! :)

      • tarek

        Just finished watching it.
        Honestly, I was surprised not to find it that bad. If you remove the stupid plot evolving around the lizard, it was ok. I’ll give it easily a B.

        Even if I still think that Garfield wasn’t the best choice to incarnate Peter Parker, still he did a wonderful job. Great acting skills.

        Now, my question is: from where did he supply the web shooters ?
        Any Idea guys ?

  • Ash Talon

    I’m seeing it, but I’m not really excited for it.

    I really didn’t care for Raimi’s Spider-Man movies. Their plots were all over the place. Spider-Man only got involved with the villains once his family/girlfriend were put in danger which to me makes him a rather selfish person. I’d like to see Peter be a little more pro-active with the villain’s story. If your scientist friend becomes a super-villain, go try to track him down and help or stop him.

  • Joe

    Guy, Matt has written some doozies in the past, but I’m afraid he’s largely correct in his assessment. I have seen this movie and came away disappointed yet happy that Raimi’s work is there for rewatch – which I did after TASM. The difference is night and day. Raimi’s work stands the test of time.

    I didn’t support a remake in the first place simply because it’s too soon and the whole exercise smelled of money grabbing. But after the second trailer I changed my opinion and thought, TASM could be a good movie – I was wrong.

    Initially I thought Garfield would make a good Spidey, and felt that Tobey was too downbeat as Parker. I was wrong. They both played their characters well – the best version would be a combo of both. Tobey played nerd well. Garfield plays Spidey as a smart alec. Though Tobey showed some glimpses of that as well. Go rewatch the first two of Raimi’s films and you’ll know what I mean.

    Now for the review – C

    The film struggles to stay average.

    The plot is quite weak and the pacing is slow. You’d expect the pacing to pick up after the initial half of the film after Parker gets bitten etc. but it never really hits a high comparable to Raimi’s works – all three of em.

    Just to get it out of the way, comparisons between Raimi’s trilogy and this are inevitable and you will do so yourself once you start watching.

    The action is not special and the transformation of Parker to Spidey is hum-drum. The musical score was a detriment to this film. James Horner did a real disservice to this film with his heroic score but failed to account for the youthfulness of his characters.

    The saving grace to an extent is the relationship between Parker and Gwen, ahem I mean between Garfield and Emma. You can see they really like each other…a lot!

    The whole subplot about his parents, scientific work is so thin it’s almost laughable if it wasn’t for Rhys Ifans Lizard who lends an element of credible menance. But it’s resolved too readily at the climax.

    The mid credit scene was poorly executed. It gives no real anticipation of what’s coming next. Webb is clueless in how to do so. Overall the film barely makes it in my opinion. It pales to the more recent Marvel films (though this is by Sony) and is no where near The Avengers or Dark Knight as others would have you believe.

    Raimi’s work was truer to the comics genesis plot. Webb’s work majored on the minor – Gwen instead of Mary Jane, web shooters instead of organic web. It lost the soul Spidey’s beginnings and weaved in the missing parents ‘plot’ simply to differentiate and little else. Even this is unresolved and is not very interesting to begin with.

    Sorry Spidey fans. This is not a good movie to rewatch again and again.

    • Grayden

      Raimi’s trilogy is, if anything, faithful to the spirit of comic books; it’s colorful, witty, and slightly to moderately campy. It does take itself to seriously at times, but while the first two were great comic book fun, the third destroyed everything the first two built. Lame story, lame villains, lame writing, and lame acting. I watched the first film again not too long ago and found it at times to be whimsical and chuckle-inducing. It wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t as awe-inspiring to see as it once was.

      Also, saying this film doesn’t stick to the “genesis plot” like Raimi’s is a little out of context. Raimi’s genesis was one version of it, Webb’s version takes more from the Ultimate Spider-Man arch and actually makes me think back to the old Fox cartoon series in which peter parker used mechanical devices to shoot his webbing and where the mystery surrounding his parents disappearance was central to his development. To me it becomes more interesting to tell a different version of a character.

      and honestly, when people say that a comic book movie didn’t stick to the “right” version of a character’s story it tells me one thing: they don’t know anything about comic books. Marvel and DC have re-written characters over and over, and rebooted their universes multiple times to the point where a character can have a couple of different, but overall similar, genesis stories. No one complained that the first Spider-Man had MJ instead of Gwen, since the villain was Goblin and fit the first Goblin story. What of it? It’s called creative license. Deal with it.

      • Smart Enough

        I’ll return the same ‘advice’ to you then regarding my review.

        Deal with it.

  • smith

    my friends saw this movie and all agree it was miles better than spiderman 3 and perhaps even better than the first one I don’t listen to this guy anymore just here for the news

  • kimian

    The first half of the film was like a remake of the First Spider man Film,only the second part was different…..and the untold story that they promised was also not told properly….Its easily the third best film in the series.

  • Strong Enough

    Geez I don’t even think people read Matt’s review. they just want to dog on him.

    Internet bullying at it’s finest


    damn jew bag.

  • Upendra

    I have seen the movie and i think we can rate it around 6.5 out of 10 .

  • Rimmer

    I have no interest in this remke. Sam Rami should’ve been given the extra time he needed to make “Spider-Man 4″. But instead, the suits said “no” and threw away money invested in sets, props, and costumes. Irvin Kerschner went over budget and time on “The Empire Stikes Back” and turned out a great film. Overall I like Rami’s work and would’ve compromised with him and not just cancelled the film. They had a great franchise going and it was cool to see the characters grow and develop over the years; I suppose Parker would’ve been a husband in part 4. It would’ve been fun to see Toby appear in “Avengers 2″, perhaps, too.

  • Hunter

    Just saw the movie and I thought it was really good. I enjoyed the new cast I understand that it had a lot of the same elements from the first one that was made, but I would rather have a Spidey movie then none at all and I had no problem with the one Webb put together.

  • Rick Ross

    TASM is for the kids who enjoyed X-Men: 1st Class. If you didn’t enjoy 1st Class, don’t bother with TASM.

  • Ar

    Just got of a screening for this, and I gotta say, I dont get where all of Matt’s hate for this movie is coming from, they explained what his Dad was doing in the first hour, and it ties in to (SPOILER) the whole Spiderman and Lizard deal. And it was quite charming and was alot more faithful to the comics than the Raimi movies. This movie is great 4.5 stars, 2nd only to the Avengers so far.

    • Joe

      “And it was quite charming and was alot more faithful to the comics than the Raimi movies.”

      Go read Amazing Fantasy Vol 1 15 and tell me which one was more faithful in the genesis.

  • M.

    Film looks great. Its better than first or the third movie about Spidey. But the story is very familiar with the Spider Man 2 and Batman Begins. The cast = great, visual = great, score (its only tottaly fail in film because Horner not Zimmer, Shore or Reznor & Ross) = not great, story = its not new or something (but from author of the Fincher’s Zodiak i want it something original and detail).
    “B-” because the story of new Parker sucks in some ways.

  • Spidey Fan

    This is no spoiler…
    Guys, I am in India and watched The Amazing
    Spiderman on 29th June…. Though its a good
    movie with great performance by Andrew, decent
    watch but I wanna share my disappointments:
    1. Darkness: Why after The Dark Knight, every
    superhero movie has to be dark & heavy?
    2. Untold Story: Themuch hyped “untold story”
    about who killed Spidey’s parents is never
    revealed in the movie.
    3. Night sequence: He is no Batman, then why all
    the sequence has to be in night
    4. Superhero?: Except suit & artificial web, the
    Spidey has no superpower, he was like very
    ordinary man. Getting beaten everytime.
    5. Superhero Again?: If he is superhero than why
    he is focusing only on personal revenge and not
    saving the public.
    6. Villian: You will be very disappointed with
    Lizard. There is not much of or scope in the
    7. Spidey’s Secret: It was getting revealed very
    cheaply in the movie so many times.
    8. Transition: Peter’s transition into spidey was
    not effective & entertaining.
    9. Gwen: Though having significant role, she is
    not impactful or charming (this is my personal
    opinion only)

  • wow


  • Banes

    This movie is B+ actually. Its a good movie acting is good and all are well cast. He hated Prometheus but that was also a good movie.


    Hahahahaha @ all the angry fanboys on here. He didn’t give it a great review, get over it you sad twats, its one persons opinion! That said, nearly all reviews have raised the same negative points about this film.

  • Alan

    Surprise, surprise: the guy, who has continually questioned the film sight unseen, doesn’t like it. It makes sense that Goldberg doesn’t read the comments section anymore: in fact, I would be surprised to hear he reads anything except his own writing.

  • THATguy

    “the woefully miscast Andrew Garfield?”
    If anything, from most of the negative reviews floating along the internet, Garfield is one of the few PRAISES many critics have given the new movie.

  • Pocketses

    One of my absolute favorite films this year. Have no real qualms about it, and it was MILES better than Sam Raimi’s vomit. I love Raimi, but outside of Spider-Man 2, he couldn’t do **** with the character. The first dragged painfully and talk about woefully miscast? Kirsten Dunst…**** that idiotic decision.

    Amazing Spider-Man outclassed Raimi’s poor efforts combined, loved it, and seeing it again today.

  • look out

    i predict Matt will give TDKR a C- hahahahahahah

  • SethR

    I saw the movie last night, and I have to agree with Matt on most of this. He is a little harsh (like always), but this movie does have some serious writing troubles. There are numerous instances where characters go out of their way to do things they don’t do any other time in the entire movie just to get the plot going in the next direction. Like many origin stories, the movie wanted to slow down and flesh out the NEW storyline (involving a heavier dose of Peter’s parents), but there was a point midway through where the writers completely abandoned it in an effort to advance the plot in preparation for the ‘big bad’ fight. All of the performances are great, the plot was just not successfully executed.

  • Pocketses

    Cool, my positive view toward this movie that originally showed up here has been deleted. Gotta love the amount of professionalism oozing through this site.

    Meanwhile, I’ll say it again, for me, this movie completely outclassed Raimi’s films combined. I loved every second of it, and am seeing it again today.

  • Buzz

    Have not seen it…but that was such a poorly written and poorly thought out review. Alot of times I’ll go into a movie having read a negative review and it will color my own crtique of the film.

    In this case, I want to see it more.

    I also have to point out that he calls Garfield woefully miscast and says he doesn’t look the part, and then he says Garfield gave a great performance at the end of the review. HUH? Methinks a certain nerd is a little jealous of a handsome Garfield, and missing the nerdy Macguire, who looked nothing like the comic PP, and who was, in fact, woefully miscast. I always thought the Raimi movies were cool IN SPITE of Macguire. He looks like a big eyes, waxy doll, Tobey does.

    Garfield looks like he was born for that role, and from the scenes I’ve seen, he nails the humor, something Macguire never did.

    • Ben

      How does Garfield look like he was born for that role?? He’s a thin, lanky, odd looking dude with a GQ model’s face and goofy hair. I don’t remember Peter Parker EVER looking like that in ANY incarnation of the comic books. All they did in this movie is give him 80s nerd glasses. Maguire looked like PP from the older books. Do a little research, would ya.

      Honestly, neither of them nail the humor. Garfield is too cheesy and annoying and Maguire just has no delivery.

      You can still give a great performance even if you don’t look the part. I do agree the review kind of sucked. Though, it’s not as nitpicky as Goldberg’s other reviews.

  • SaM

    Aye carumba! This movie was a hot mess! A skateboarding Spidey who gets beaten up plenty and loves revealing his identity to people. I think he cries more times than Tobey too.

    Nothing in the movie showed him as a credible superhero except the final fight where he had help from crane operators and a cop with a shot-gun. This is the most lame azz webhead I’ve seen.

    Save your $$ and wait for the DVD.

    P.S. as for the “untold story”? It’s still untold.

  • Steven Crowley

    Well, I think…That “Tobey Macguire” (Previous Spider-Man) Has, GREAT INITALS.

  • KT

    This is the fifth review I’ve read that’s given this movie a C grade. I’ll wait for it on Netflix…

  • terry

    And you wonder why Emma and Andrew are dating. It is complete BS! A PR stunt. I knew this trash was going to smell like a dead hookers cooch!

  • Tooter

    I just saw it, and my opinion of it is that it is degrees better than Raimi’s first Spider-Man flick. I am a life-long fan of the Spider-Man comics, but I still can’t get past the travesty that was Raimi’s Green Goblin. I just thought everything about the character was awful. The Amazing Spider-Man offers a way better villain in the Lizard, and the dynamics between Parker/Connors/Spider-Man/the Lizard is just way more digestible this time around. Also, Peter and Gwen have an instant chemistry that Raimi could only wish to get out of Macguire and Dunst. At the end of the day, you get another solid Spider-Man movie with the implied promise of more to come. Oh, and CGI is getting pretty incredible nowadays; some CGI shots were the cleanest I can remember seeing in any movie. As a Spider-Man fan, what more could you ask for? It was a pretty good flick.

  • That Guy

    Does Goldberg have to crap on everything? Survey says YES!

  • JK92

    I stopped reading the comments at the point where they started saying “this movie is made for the Twilight fans”……..
    If you’ve ever read a Spider-Man comic, then you will see that this absolutely nails what it means to be Spider-Man and how a SM movie should go….Every aspect of this hero is in the movie, and it greatly portrayed. The level of understanding and respect that Webb clearly has for Spider-Man definitely rivals the understanding and respect Nolan has for Batman….whether or not you like the Nolan films or this film, if you look at the source material, and I mean REALLY look at it, Batman Begins, The Amazing Spider-Man, The Dark Knight really have captured the core essence of who these people are.

  • Jon

    This was miles better than Raimi’s films.

  • Chris138

    I didn’t expect to like this movie as much as I did. I thought it was even better than The Avengers. And I can already feel the wrath of the diehard Avengers fans who will call me out for saying that.

  • Gambit

    You guys are really disgusting. Everybody is entitled to have an opinion on a movie. Matt didn’t like it. You haven’t even SEEN it, ffs. Get over yourself.

  • flying pink unicorn

    Matt Goldberg: You say that The Amazing Spiderman doesn’t know what story to tell. Well, your assumptions matches your own article as YOU don’t know how to stick to your own critical standpoints, nor give an well-rounded elaboration of them.
    First you call Andrew Garfield a woefully miscast, proceeding to then call his performance terrific. Now if it’s just your bi-polar tendencies that have caused you to make such a mess of contradicting statements, then that’s that.
    Then you say that Spiderman’s encounter with the lizard in his school was a distraction from Connors side. Now, that is a statement that doesn’t scream out that your article is a complete mess, but it’s still invalid. Now, peter knows who the lizard is and is therefore a threat to his plan and taken Dr. Connors schizophrenic side effects, it makes perfect sense for him to try and kill his biggest/only obstacle. So if that’s one of the “idiotic” character motivations, maybe that statement comes from an idiotic source?
    Alright, to talk about your critique of the mood and feel the movie is structured around, your say that the gritty realism is draining it from being lighthearted. No shit Sherlock! This is how the movie is – it’s gritty which is something that makes it a whole other movie than Sam Rami’s Spiderman films. And you wan’t humor and lightheadedness!?! Go watch Avengers again if you want that man, don’t go running around bitching about it being too gritty. That’s just how the movie is and it shouldn’t be a thing to critique.
    What you so greatly do, is to suck out the anticipation from people that have been wating for The Amazing Spiderman for over a year. Cos you aren’t making a more or less objective review, you’re are plat out hating. I have a couple of critiques of the movie, non of them was in your review.
    Last, I don’t give a pile of shit if your read this, but hopefully people will before they change their mind of wheter it’s worth wathing the movie or not.

  • ozzie

    I watched this movie yesterday and I have to say it’s the best Spider-man movie ever made and probably one of my favorite films of the last 10 years. The writing and dialog for this movie is excellent. It was delivered so well by Garfield and the rest of the cast that it felt very natural.

    A bunch of the cheesy jokes in the trailers were cut out of the film or were different in the end film. This is a cheese free spidey-tale.

    This film depicted spider-man as a typical modern teenager who always had the heart of a hero and now has the powers to back it up but has problems adapting.

    The sold out theater I was in had the undivided attention of everyone there. Everyone was glued to the screen with almost no whispering or talking. A lot of crying over uncle Ben.

    This movie makes the Raimi spiderman look so bad just because it tells the story better and the writing was so much better and delivered flawlessly by Garfield, Stone, Leary, Ifans, Field, and Sheen.

    A quick note to the guy who was listing bullet points of why this movie was bad … the movie does explain who killed Peter’s parents but you have to pay attention and put the pieces together yourself … they don’t spoon feed it to you on a billboard.

    Great movie all together and I do understand Matt’s review and why he thinks the things he does. Normal movie goers just don’t care about the same thing Matt does so they enjoyed what is a really great movie experience.


    I cannot write this review without it having two sides; the Spider-Man fan boy side and the movie lover side. I must admit I love comic books and by far the most relatable character I have ever seen is Peter Parker. That being said, the Peter Parker played by Toby McGuire seems to be a better fit for the series. However, the Spider-Man in this film is uncanny! A few times he seemed to be overly sarcastic, but as a whole the clumsy, quick on his feet, and intuitive Spider-Man is here and I loved it! The Peter Parker in this film I think missed its mark, but we must give credit that they didn’t want to replicate the first three films. The biggest let down was Coners (the Lizard). I really wish they had included the depth to him that is in the comics; they don’t develop him enough in my opinion. The movie as a whole is on par, if not slightly (and I mean ever so slightly) better than the first Spider-Man movie with Toby McGuire. Also, I need to say good choice with Emma Stone as Gwen!

    Now for the movie lover side. Great action-packed thrill ride of a movie. The story is solid, the characters are well played and the cinematic effects are fantastic. I saw this movie with a noisy crowd of moviegoers that seem to pay more attention to their cell phones and dates than the actual movie, but I was so captivated by what I was watching that I hardly noticed them. I cannot say enough how much I enjoyed this film! With the post credit scene and the announcement of a sequel, you can bet I will be at opening day for the next one. This is a movie I think even the non-comic book nerds will enjoy and it’s definitely worth full admission.

  • chuck

    I would give it a 6 out of 10. I think the tone of Raimi’s films were better suited for Spiderman as a whole. Going Batman Begins dark bothered me and gave the movie little sense of fun. Spiderman should have a fun element as hes not Batman. The Lizard stroyline is a big mess and really hurts the film. Im much more of a Raimi, McGuire fan in terms of Spiderman.

  • Jimmay

    I know not to read this review as soon as I read the first line and judge the movie myself. So happy I did because this review is so eschewed to hate the movie before it starts. Raimi’s treatments dont hold a candle to this fantastic film. Reviewer is a moron who has no context of Spiderman’s history in comics to enjoy this film. Finally spiderman is delivering horrible cheesy jokes during the fights. And is actually a f’n scientist like the comics! Not some emo kid dubstepping down the street!

  • free movies

    I loved as much as you’ll receive performed right here. The comic strip is tasteful, your authored material stylish. nevertheless, you command get bought an shakiness over that you want be turning in the following. unwell for sure come further before once more since exactly the same nearly very ceaselessly within case you protect this hike.

  • Buzz

    Saw this last night, and it ten times better than any of the Raimi Spidey films….and I really like Raimi.

    Garfield looks exactly like Peter from the comics, and his quirkiness and bit of neuroticism play perfect for the character. When he cries and gets emotional, it makes you choke up because the guy puts everything into the role, you can see it. Macguire looked like a deer in headlights for all three movies.

    Better action, better effects, Spidey being a smarta$$ like he is in the comic book…better villain, prefect casting, great story that kept you immersed for the entire movie. There was nothing wrong with the plot, the parent storyline wasn’t SUPPOSED to be the center of the movie, just a part of it. Writing was great.

    Bottom line, Matt went into this movie obviously loving the Macguire version, and he went in wnting to not like Garfield for the role. But trust me, coming from a guy who started reading Spiderman at age 8…this is an excellent movie, done exactly like the comic, without the Raimi cheesiness. Go see it in the theatre, totally worth it.

  • martin

    I ve read your review and I must say I had an impression while reading it that you are an idiot. skip the reviews and do something with your life. my advice