Having now seen the movie, I will admit that while my initial cynicism may be justified, The Amazing Spider-Man is better than it had any right to be. Though devoting half the film to ground already covered - and better - in Sam Raimi's original Spider-Man (2002), Webb has nevertheless produced an exciting Spider-Man adventure. If one drops all cynicism to simply sit back and enjoy what transpires on screen, TASM is a perfectly satisfying superhero tale. In the pantheon of long underwear characters adapted to film, it is closer to the upper echelon than the lower. As the Big Three go - Superman, Batman, Spider-Man - TASM is miles above the disappointing Superman Returns while not quite reaching the heights of Nolan's Batman films.
Praise for the movie has justifiably tended to focus on the performances of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. Each does an outstanding job with their character. In her role as the token love interest, Stone improves considerably on Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane Watson, although partial credit must go to the screenwriters, who render her Gwen Stacy a stronger and more independent character than Raimi's indecisive, narcissistic MJ. That said, there is no iconic moment to rival the kiss in the rain from the Raimi original.
Garfield's performance must be rated on a dualistic basis. As Spider-Man, he is far and away a more charismatic and amusing Spidey than Tobey Maguire's interpretation. Garfield's hero makes constant quips - something sorely lacking when Maguire wore the tights, and truer to the presentation of Spider-Man in the comics (where the shy Parker seems to become a different person under the mask, wittier and funnier).
As Peter Parker - specifically, as a high school-age Parker - Garfield comes up short of Maguire, who I could believe as an unpopular and awkward nerd. As has been pointed out by other reviewers, Garfield is simply too good-looking to buy as a social pariah or the hapless victim of bullies. Perhaps this is a reflection on the state of culture ten years after the original, when nerds like Mark Zuckerberg have become globe-straddling trendsetters. This Peter rides a skateboard, and his clothes and bedroom are festooned with "hip" cultural icons - The Clash, The Ramones, Johnny Cash. Garfield's Peter is perfectly likeable and there's nothing wrong with his acting; I simply couldn't buy him as a geek.
But there is a caveat, because this only refers to a single aspect of the character. Tobey Maguire played the "nerdy" Peter to perfection, but unfortunately never evolved beyond this. Throughout all three of Raimi's films, Maguire's Parker remained socially awkward to the point where it became irritating by the third movie. Where was the character development? In the comics, Peter eventually became more confident and cool, which was a nice transition to see. Unlike Maguire, Garfield has this aspect nailed down. While off-putting to me in the depiction of a teenage Parker, I believe this quality will accrue to Garfield's advantage as an older Peter when the inevitable sequel(s) see the light of day.
The choice of The Lizard as villain is a strange one for a movie that occasionally seems to be aping the "gritty, realistic" character of the Nolan Batman films, which leads us to a crucial point: the world of Spider-Man is in no sense "gritty" or "realistic". We're talking about a hero who is bitten by a spider and gains spider-like superpowers, fighting a giant lizard in the streets of Manhattan. It is literally impossible to depict such events in a "realistic" manner. If that's what the filmmakers were going for, they failed. But I don't think they were.
Ultimately, this is a perfectly serviceable popcorn flick. It likely won't be remembered as long as the 2002 film, and certainly won't have the same cultural impact, but plays well while you're watching it. Rhys Ifans does a fine job as Dr. Curt Connors, aka The Lizard. The special effects are far superior to Raimi's original films, helped along by the fact that whenever possible the filmmakers used real stunts for the webslinging rather than CGI.
There are some plot holes. Peter is driven to seek revenge on Uncle Ben's killer, yet the matter is effectively dropped after The Lizard becomes a real threat. The possibility that the plotline will be resolved in a sequel is an annoying side-effect of the blockbuster franchise era. But there is a more pernicious aspect to this plot thread. It may be argued that this movie sidesteps the entire theme of the Spider-Man story - "with great power comes great responsibility". In the comics and the first Raimi film, Spider-Man is directly responsible for causing Uncle Ben's death by failing to apprehend the killer when he had the chance, and channels that guilt and anger into his life as a crimefighter.
In Webb's interpretation, that responsibility is less direct; there is less guilt and more anger. Sure, Uncle Ben gets killed while looking for Peter, who left their home in anger. But by turning Peter's motivation for becoming Spider-Man into a mission primarily of vengeance - only to leave that plotline unresolved - Webb essentially defeats the point of devoting half the movie to re-telling the origin story.
In the end, my praise for this movie likely comes as a result of my expectations being so low. I was pleasantly surprised, but am looking forward to a sequel more now that the origin is out of the way.
Final note: there is absolutely no point in seeing this movie in 3-D. For long periods I forgot I was even wearing the glasses. Go 2-D if you can.
