Having finally seen "The Amazing Spider-Man" a comparison between the first trilogy and this film is almost inevitable. Like many, I thought that re-launching the series so soon after the first one ended was a little hinky, but hey, the mighty marketing juggernaut that is Disney clearly knows what it's doing, so I was glad to sit down and give Amazing a shot.
I enjoyed the first trilogy, even if Tobey Maguire was a little weak. I just couldn't buy him as menacing, would-be Venom (nothing inspires parasitic alien flesh-eating menace like a spontaneous dance number). On the other side, I greatly enjoyed the de-evolution of James Franco's Harry Osborne, and Alfred Molina set the benchmark for comic-book villains exceeded only by Tom Hiddleston's performance in "The Avengers".
Andrew Garfield gave us a modern, edgier, angrier Peter Parker that was nearly too over the top to be plausible. It was enjoyable nonetheless, especially watching him go Brooklyn on Martin Sheen (How dare me?! How dare you?!) It was a decent modern update on what had already been established, and that it could've done a few things better.
It was on par with the first Spider-Man, and Andrew Garfield is definitely a better fit in the Ultimates universe the films appear to be building than Tobey Maguire would be.
Bottom line; Tobey Maguire is the Peter Parker of regular Marvel continuity. Andrew Garfield is the Ultimates version.
I, for one, have always preferred the Ultimates variation of the Marvel Universe.
That's just me.
Thank you for reading.