Saw The Amazing Spider-Man. I initially considered it a "Why?" movie, as in "Why even bother remaking a movie franchise that's just 10 years old?" And that's what it ended up being, except it was better than I expected it to be. It was good, not great, and certainly not amazing, especially when pitted against Spider-Man 2, which was a work of genius at the time.
The CGI for this outing is mostly pretty good, but nothing we haven't seen before. For a movie trying to be "gritty" and "realistic," because I guess that's the fad these days, it still felt like a cartoon. The filmmakers should've drawn from Batman Begins for inspiration on how to make an essentially preposterous storyline dark and gritty, not to mention masterful. And as is, The Amazing Spider-Man, despite clearly having no relation to Sam Raimi's universe, still manages to see little change. I don't understand why they couldn't just continue Raimi's universe with some of the same actors.
Which brings me to my next point, where Tobey Maguire was a better Peter Parker, Andrew Garfield is the better Spider-Man. I loved Garfield's smart-assed interpretation of Peter's alter ego, but he simply wasn't nerdy enough to be a good Peter Parker.
Special props go to James Horner's musical score though, which seems to plagiarize Danny Elfman's scores in both Raimi's Spider-Man films and others. Although I guess it's a step up from Horner's renowned self-plagiarizing.