Those with the power to decide the fate of the Spiderman movie franchise made the decision to reboot the system after 3 Tobey Maguire movies. Was Tobey's price tag getting too high or did they just wanted a fresh start? The answer is perhaps a little bit of both, especially considering the last installment of the Maguire trilogy was the least critically acclaimed. The new "Amazing" Spiderman series stars British actor Andrew Garfield and has incredible special effects (as expected) but Garfield did not feel like Peter Parker (though he is more believable as a genius than Tobey). Did we really need a darker, more mysterious Peter Parker?
I don't know about you, but I really liked Tobey Maguire in this role, even if #3 was by far his worst acting performance in his trilogy. He did a remarkably accurate portrayal of the Peter Parker character depicted in the comic books. Perhaps more than Tobey, I'm going to miss Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane. In my quasi-professional opinion, she was awesome. Emma Stone was alright, but lacking in the category of awesomeness. Tobey and Kirsten played the roles as they were meant to be performed. Andrew and Emma felt forced.
My most important demand is that every person responsible for making a Spiderman movie without J. Jonah Jameson be fired immediately and quarantined from the creative process in future films. You can't have a Spiderman movie without the boss at the Daily Bugle, and any individual who encouraged or even facilitated this travesty does not possess the creative wherewithal required for the super hero genre, and should be fired. Immediately. Do it.
The next ill-advised decision was telling the origin story again. Once was enough. Reboot if you must, but don't tell same damned origin story, even if you change out some characters and tell a slightly different tale. They shouldn't have to reboot the origin story each time they replace an actor in a franchise. Otherwise the hulk movies will just end up being the same story over and over again. Get on with a new story, even if the lead actor changes. The philosophical structure behind this reboot was flawed, and the 3D was not nearly as good as it could have been.
The movie is worth seeing if you have any interest in the hero genre, but did not meet my expectation. The visual effects were outstanding, but the casting was lacking and there were serious mistakes in the story making process. It was better than Spiderman 3, but worse than 1 and 2. It wasn't bad, but neither was it good. So if you'd like to watch superior special effects with inferior acting and a flawed story, the Amazing Spiderman is for you. There were far more laughable moments in the Maguire Spiderman movies; however if what you always wanted was a more serious Spiderman, then perhaps Garfield is for you. It was worth the price of admission, but fell short of its potential.