The new Spider-Man Movie

[Slothy]

Don't have time for a detailed review or anything, but for what it's worth from a lifelong Spider-Man fan who was skeptical of a reboot; Andrew Garfield is the better Peter and Spider-Man, Emma Stone was much better than Kirsten Dunst, they both have more chemistry, and while I like Sam Raimi, it's nice to not have his trademark campiness. It might have worked 10 years ago, but the movie is better off for not having it. Anyone passing on this one is making a mistake because overall it's the better movie by quite a wide margin.

Edit: bit more time now so why not add a few things in response to the OP.

The first half hour or so of the movie was just the origin story, which was annoying nd a bore to go over again.

I actually quite enjoyed the new take on his origin, largely because it avoided the camp of having him try to wrestle to win some money and, well, it just avoided the camp in general. Seeing him make the web shooters was nice as well, though you'd think someone will eventually catch on that he's buying webbing from Oscorp.

In the maguire movies he actually gets sick and nauseous because of the bite. In this movie he gets bit and then has his powers no problem.

(SPOILER)Except that he was passed out on that subway car if you didn't notice. Still, I don't see the big deal with skipping something which is fairly superfluous. Seeing him struggle to control his powers was more interesting than seeing him come down with a flu then wake up ripped.

In the first one people commented on the fact that maguire drew the standard spidey costume then showed up at the arena with what looked like gym clothes. However, I always wondered where he got his actual costume done, particularly since it had rubber lines for webs and such and just seemed more prefessionally done, than parker would've been able to do.

Maybe I'm forgetting here, but didn't the wrestling promoter have the costume made for him? I might be confusing it for another incarnation of Spidey though. Still begs the question of what he did anytime he ripped the damn thing. Also, slight aside which is kind of related to both movies; sewing spandex is hard, and you did not do that by hand Peter. There's a reason I decided against sewing my own unitard for a Superman costume a few years ago.

Also was the fact the in the maguire movie he confronted his uncles killer and is there when he accidentally falls out of the window and dies, giving peter a sense of the power and responsibility thing. However in this one, he doesn't find the killer, but decides to use his powers for good after saving a kid in a car. It just didn't feel like the emotional spark was there for him to become spider man like it was in the maguire movie.

The importance of the burglar wasn't in being confronted by Peter, it was in Peter realizing he could have stopped him before he killed Ben but did nothing. That's the impetus for him putting on a costume and going out there. He's a character driven by immense guilt because his own inaction caused the death of his uncle. And I honestly felt the progression in this one was more natural. (SPOILER)He starts out beating up petty thugs looking for the killer out of guilt and probably some amount of desire for revenge, but after the bridge scene realizes he could be doing a lot more.

Of the two actors playing spider man, I prefer maguire.

Couldn't disagree more. Maguire's Peter Parker was good, despite hamming it up on a few occasion's, but his Spider-Man never felt right. There were no quips, no one-liners, no feigned cockiness to try and keep his enemies off guard. He was just nerdy Peter Parker in a dorky costume. In an actual fight, Spidey would be talking your ear off and they never had that right with the original movies. Hell, even in the Spider-Man games where Maguire voiced the character, his delivery fell flat. He may have done a good enough job of playing Peter (though after watching some of Spider-Man 2 on TV on Saturday I'd argue his performance is quite dated and doesn't play as well as nostalgia would like me to believe), but he wasn't the best Spider-Man. He just had the distinction of being in one of the first super hero movies in a decade or more to not completely suck.

i don't understand why they even needed to do a reboot.

I have lot's of love and respect for Sam Raimi, but those original Spider-Man movies have not aged as well as we'd like to think. Certainly better than the likes of Tim Burton's Batman movies, but even less than ten years later those movies are too campy, and just don't hold up as well now when compared to the likes of Iron Man, Avengers, or the Nolan Batman films. For the time they came out they were amazing pieces of superhero cinema, and we can almost certainly thank them and X-Men for every great superhero movie that came after, but the bar has been raised so much since then that if they were going to try and do something Spider-Man related they really needed a reboot to let them start fresh without being tied to what Raimi did which would have worked against them if you ask me. Especially with how reviled Spider-Man 3 was by the general public.