It's like watching the first Spider-Man movie all over again, only this time with better lead actors but a less substantial storyline

Rating: 7/10 (29 June 2012)

Warning: this is not a superhero movie.
Okay, I kid.
There's a modicum of truth to it though, as "The Amazing Spider-Man" is not the superhero movie you wished it would be.
This is the fourth film that portrays Peter Parker and his alter-ego on the big screen and is a reboot of the Sam Raimi film series with Andrew Garfield replacing Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man.
Fans of the original series were dissonant upon learning of Andrew Garfield's selection as the new Spider-Man, with some saying he's too skinny, or he looks too meek, and all that blah. Well guess what? Andrew Garfield made the character his own. He delivered the goods with his acting chops and boyish charm. Sure, he did not look as good as Tobey Maguire in his spandex suit, but his physical and emotional embodiment of the protagonist was more than enough to make up for a rather so-so physique.
Likewise, Emma Stone used her all-American girl good looks and personality to give life to Gwen Stacy (previously played by the equally stunning Bryce Dallas Howard). Stone has the makings of a quintessential leading lady she could have given Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane a run for her money.
On the downside, the most palpable shortcoming of the film is its superficiality. It's entertaining, yes, but there is hardly any depth to it. The plot is a lot more predictable than expected, and the characters are not well-defined, Dr. Curt Connors in particular.
Given the groundwork of the first 3 films, I was sure that the script of this new series' first offering could be better. Alas, I was wrong. It comes as a surprise to me, knowing that Marc Webb did such a fantastic job when he directed "(500) Days of Summer" starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel. Where he triumphed in the former, he failed in the latter. What's good though, is that Webb nailed the action on this one.
Shooting from a subjective point of view proved to be very effective as it gives you the feeling of flying with the main character. You can almost experience that sense of velocity when Spider-Man swings through the streets, as if you've just been rescued by him. I bet it would be even more thrilling when seen in 3D (too bad three-dimensional graphics make me nauseous). If I may add, the visual effects, sound mixing and sound editing are outstanding, too.
Now If you were to ask me which one is better, I'd still go with the original. Sam Raimi did a terrific job with the first franchise and remained loyal to the comic books. Nevertheless, you'd have to give props to this movie for trying to identify itself as a reboot, not a remake. It's pretty much a repackage of what we've already seen and what we have always known about our favorite web-spinning hero, so where's the untold story here? It's obvious that the studios are still trying to cash in from the millions of moviegoers who can't get enough of Spider-Man. Whatever the producers are up to – and I'm pretty damn sure that they're cooking up a sequel – it better be good.
P.S.
To those who intend to watch the movie, here's a tip: If you have seen other films based from Marvel Comics characters, you should know better than to leave the cinema as soon as the credits started to roll.