Everyone else is doing it, why can’t we? Lets compare the two Spider-Man movie series.

            There are good things and bad things about each movie (natch). Amazing is definitely more realistic…but Sam Raimi has a certain style about him, so of course his trilogy was campier (it was supposed to be). Raimi’s volume was hailed as a realistic take, but AMAZING SPIDER-MAN is by far superior in that category. For example, in reality the police would most certainly lie to the public, frame themselves as the saviors and demonize the hero to convince people that they are keeping them safe, not Spider-Man. I doubt there would be many "Spider-Man Day Parades" if Spidey existed in real life.
            The acting was pretty top-notch in both movies, but perhaps Amazing has a bit of an edge in that category due to the emphasis on realism as opposed to the Raimi-campy greatness. All the actors gave quite stellar performances. Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Sally Field, Martin Sheen, Rhys Ifans -- all of them did so well I barely even missed JJJ in this one (I'll never forget you J.K. Simmons!). It was probably even the best performance in Dennis Leary's career, like ever, but then again I guess the volume one movie series had the best performance of Kirsten Dunst’s career ever…and that wasn’t that hot of a performance.

            Speaking of tiring love stories, AMAZING’s mooshy moments are way more enjoyable than say SPIDER-MAN (part 1). The love story wasn’t the main story of the film as it was in the first Spider-Man origin. The fact that it wasn’t as big a part of the movie alone made it better.

            All in all I'd say Amazing Spider-Man is as good as the original Spider-Man, but Spider-Man 2 is still better. Spider-Man 2 is one of the best superhero flicks of all time, right up there with; Superman 2, The Dark Knight and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. 

           While AMAZING SPIDER-MAN has much more realism and is hyper-modern, I still fail to see the necessity in doing the reboot. Did I enjoy the film? Sure. But I would have enjoyed it just as much if it was Spider-Man part 4 and I wouldn't have to watch the origin again. A modern re-told origin at that. So they get closer to the books with Gwen and the web-shooters, yet change the origin...oh well... While the origin aspect in AMAZING SPIDER-MAN is more realistic and the original story of the movie flows well, Sam Raimi was still overall more faithful to the source material, both Earth 616 and Ultimate Comics, in his films.

            And what is up with The Lizards master plan/weapon being essentially a rip-off of The League of “Shadows” grand scheme / big weapon to infect big amounts of victims from BATMAN BEGINS? Not to mention this was also pretty much the same plot device as BATMAN FOREVER that was concocted by Jim Carrey’s Riddler. Batman Forever is a better Batman movie then BATMAN RETURNS by the way.

            Overall I give it 3 out of 5 dead comics on the C.F.-meter (j/k) ... In the end it may have only been just as good as the original (story wise), but obviously they improved on the effects and overall I stand by saying there is tighter acting all around in the new one. While it may not be better than SPIDERMAN 2, its sequel certainly could be. I can only imagine the scene of Gwen Stacey being murdered and it all being Pete’s fault... now that's dark Spidey mythos.