First, I should say that I am a huge Sam Raimi fan, including his Spiderman series. But "The Amazing Spiderman" is way better than Raimi's take. I was always kind of disappointed in the special effects. Whenever Peter Parker donned his suit and started wall-crawling, it always looked - well, fake to me. The visual look of the new film is way slicker.
Next, Andrew Garfield is a better Peter Parker/ Spiderman. Tobey Maguire had too much sweet, Midwestern charm. You have to remember - Spiderman grew up and lived in New York. Andrew Garfield is much more New York.
They marketed this movie by saying that they would go deeper into the origins of Spiderman - his parents' dark past, how he wound up with Uncle Ben and Aunt May. And yes, they did. But the whole back story was still very weak.
They did better with characterization - exploring the relationship between Peter and his aunt and uncle (played nicely by Martin Sheen and Sally Field, respectively). The other roles are played well with Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, Denis Leary as her cop father, and a brilliant performance by Rhys Ifans as Dr. Curt Connors, who becomes the scaly villain.
The aspect I liked about the movie was how they lead up to Peter Parker deciding to become the superhero. He gradually comes into his powers, and he takes some time deciding what to do with them. That was the most human quality of the film.
I also liked that they made the web slinging the result of technology - like it was in the comics, instead of a superpower.
My kids also preferred this movie to the Sam Raimi trilogy.
One funny story - my three year-old son developed a callous on his ankle just a few days after seeing this movie, and he thought that he was turning into the movie's lizard villain.
