Yes! It makes me ill they rebooted it so quick, and I have grown tired of the reviews saying how it would be a good movie "if" it was released later. Bad is bad. It will make $$$ though, which is the only reason it was created.

I reached the same conclusion just watching the trailer. All CGI, no character empathy.

I miss Lindy.

Paul this looks better than the Toby version

Emma Stone would have amazing chemistry playing opposite a cardboard cutout. But even she probably can't entice me to pay to see this dreck in theater.

Hey Paul? You said two weeks ago that you were going to go see Brave for us. What happened to that? The internet seems to hate it, so I've been avoiding seeing the thing. You too?

The very notion of "rebooting" a series that was already rebooted within the last decade is itself completely creatively bankrupt, so it surprises me not even slightly that this movie turned out also to be so.

Besides: SAM RAIMI, you guys. Did you really think you could follow that act? DID YOU? You stupid greedy fucknuts.

Like it or not, rebooting a series less than a decade after the last reboot, for no purpose beyond cynical profiteering, is remarkably true to the comic-book-industry source material.

I will go see this solely because I have an unhealthy crush on Andrew Garfield, and will sit through even the worst movie featuring Garfield in tights.

Yes, that makes me completely shallow.

I saw it and it was actually pretty good. I'd say it's on par with the previous trilogy.

The 3D is unnecessary as always, but I liked it.

There's really no reason other than money for another Spider-Man movie, whether it would have been 4 or the reboot, and I suspect that's the problem. The comics can go om amd on with ridiculous plot twists and retcons to keep the story alive in perpetuity (seriously, by now Peter Parker should be 64 years old; Magneto should be 86), but I dont think that works so well for very long with film. People ask too many questions (just look at Prometheus).

They were never going to achieve what Nolan has with Batman (we'll see if Snyder and Nolan can even achieve it with Man of Steel). After Dark Knight Rises, I suspect we won't see another Batman movie for a long time, because that story arc is reaching its conclusion. And Nolan had 8 years of distance from Joel Schumacher's last bedpan treatment to the franchise.

Nolan can be credited with rescuing Batman from the hands of Schumacher and toy companies. But the new Spider-Man reboot is a solution to a problem we didn't have..

Emma Stone is so awesome.

They should reboot James Bond with her in the lead. Other movies they could reboot starring Emma Stone: Caddyshack. 2001: A Space Odyssey. Apocalypse Now. Let me think. Deep Throat. Hell yeah. Deathproof. Happy Feet. Match Point.

It goes on from there. They could even swing for the bleachers and write an original script starring Emma Stone. I mean gosh, she got her start that way, didn't she?

Looking forward to next summer's Spider-Man reboot...

@12 Think again - WB is planning on rebooting Batman immediately after Rises as part of an attempt to duplicate the success of Avengers with a series of DC Comics movies leading up to a Justice League film.

http://collider.com/batman-reboot-warner…

And My Dinner with Andre! Starring Emma Stone. Holy crap, can you imagine?

Uh, so the Avengers is "a fun, funny, rock-em sock-em bread-and-circuses kind of movie" and Spiderman is a "deflated bag of clichés" . . . tell you what, I'll just ignore them both, stay home, and read the New York Times instead.

@16 -- Ooh la la.

But yeah, this movie does seem pointless.

@16

If you can't stand to see Joss Whedon's ballbag fondled tenderly at least a few times a day, then you should probably stop using this internet, and go find one where things like that aren't allowed to happen.

@16 Thank you for taking time out of your busy day to let us know how you feel about superhero movies! I wish I could be as awesome as you!

@19. ohhhh, burn!

Don't worry. The NYT is hawking this shit just like The Strangler.There is no avoiding the message of the Material society.

One quibble -- Disney may own the rest of the Marvel universe, but Sony still has their paws on Spider-man, hence the reboot a decade after the Raimi movies came out. They have to keep making Spidey movies or the rights revert back to Marvel and Disney.

I can't argue that this movie was anything other than pointless and unnecessary. But overall, I have to say that I preferred it to any but the peaks of Raimi's trilogy (the first half of the first one, the parts of the second that featured Alfred Molina). Garfield was a more jittery, complicated Parker (and, as such, a more energized Spider-Man, with a leaner, more arachnoid physicality); Stone had a lot of dimension; and the chemistry they shared managed to be more than a tagged-on afterthought.

Great cinema it was not, but as summer popcorn movies go, I've seen worse.

Is it really "deep-seated"? I thought it was "deep-seeded", which seems to make a good deal more sense, inasmuch as I can tell.

@25

It really is. Think "seated" in the sense of "fixed firmly in place" or "properly attached to a base or foundation."

And you know, if you plant seeds too deep, they won't sprout.

Thanks!

Okay, in all fairness, I haven't gone to see this one, but...wasn't there a Spiderman movie out not too long before this one?
Is Hollywood into remakes of remakes now?

@4: The Toby version--that's the one. Thanks.

This was shit.

I don't see where your argument is coming from...? You say bad things about the movie, yet have little to back it up with. My only nit pick with the movie is that Lizard is dull, the rest I can say, this is the best Spider-Man movie/reboot/origin story to date. Yeah, I put this movie ABOVE Spider-Man 2.
Come at me, bros.