The Amazing Spider-Man (12A)

This film ticked all the boxes for me, I thought there wasn't as much "romancy" bits in it compared to the Toby Maguire ones. I think Andrew Garfield plays an epic spider-man and I like him even more as he adds teenage comedy into it. it needs a sequal though but aginst batman dark knight rises it beats it by a country mile. 4 and a half stars

lf the Raimi version is Ditko this one is Romita. l know which one l prefer...

I really enjoyed this reboot of Spiderman. I felt that Andrew Garfield's character delivered more gusto than Toby Maguire's Peter Parker portaying much more inner anger. This version is also definately truer to the comic books than Raimi's version and delivered a more gritty storyline. It isn't perfect but cannot be compared to Nolans Batman in way of realism in that Batman is a man with gadgets whereas Spiderman is bestowed with a superpower. Let's see how Man of Steel translates before that debate can truly take place.

a pleasant surprise -better than raimi version and truer to the original source -also garfield is a natural and emma stone looks pretty too -the visual style is splendid and on top of that much better than batman 3 -best summer blockbuster yet

Very enjoyable but more for the acting than the plot and special effects. Character led and fun, but found the Rhys Ifans character lightweight and not a spot on the Green Lantern or especially Alfred Molina's brilliant Doctor Octopus. Welll worth two and a half hours of your time though.

I am too lazy to comment in every aspect.But I do believe that had this movie come before Raimi's version people would be tearing Raimi's version to shreds.This is far more true to the comics than Raimi's, for those of you that don't know. Garfield and Stone were great.The unanswered questions?It is obvious they r cliffhangers for the sequel. To me this is THE Spider-man movie, even though, I do believe they could have done better with the Lizzard.

Sadly for the genre this is a flawed Spiderman film. Laden with way too many soppy scenes and then jumping oddly from slapstick to action it just doesn't work. The 3D is disappointing, almost pointless and not used enough and Garfield just doesn't get the part well. Sadly one of the worst of the latest revamped Spiderman films.

Thanks for your comments, 'Nolan's Bitch'. But I think the film deserves criticism for not being better than Raimi's since it is so hot on the tails of the previous films. Nolan's Batman re-boot was a solid re-imagining of the world of Batman, different from Burton's early, and brilliant, versions, and definitely an upgrade from the later appalling films (George Clooney's worst film, anyone?). But Webb's Spiderman didn't create a new world, or, in my view, offer anything different or original apart from a new cast. I think he'd have been better off directing Spiderman 4 - a new story in the same world, rather than the re-start which this film offered. I think taken on it's own with no other Spiderman films to refer to it's ok (maybe 2 stars) - but it bored me, the dialogue was often so pedestrian as to be laughable (e.g. "Where's the Lizard?" "He's gone" "Ok"), and so many issues weren't followed through (e.g. what happened to the desire to hunt down his uncle's killer?). It just seemed almost as pointless as the shot for shot remake of Pyscho from a few years ago. Though not quite as pointless.

Lot of people seem to be giving this 1 star because it's not any better than the original, but it's still worthy of at least 3 stars, right? If I had to, I'd give this a 3 1/2 stars, or 4 if pushed Shame they took out the Lizard student face-licking scene that I saw last summer as an exclusive preview - It made him seem more evil. I thought Rhys Ifans did an admiral job for a villain that was written as being nicer than nasty - He would have done better if they turned his character into something more EVIL. Good job Webb! Just not as satisfying as Raimi's.

Oh yes, the 3D impresses.........sorry!