With this reboot, I thee web: "The Amazing Spider-Man"

I don't know what the big fuss is. Just wait until five years from now when Bieber is playing Peter Parker. Then we'll be wishing the Mayans were right ...

I won't say I was conflicted about our favorite web-slinger getting another big-screen version so soon. I was more meh. Sure, it didn't seem to make much sense, especially when the 2002 Raimi-Maguire version was almost universally praised. But hey ... if you think you can do the story justice again so soon with the right cast and enough tweaks to make it interesting, why not? Are we going to pretend the movie business is all about originality? Then someone please explain why both the "Resident Evil" and "Underworld " series are apparently going to outlive every last one of us. Seriously ... it's kind of scary.

Clearly we can dispense with the basic plot of the Boy Arachnid -- to wit, a teen nerd with a crush on the cute girl gets bit by an effed-up spider, suffers emotional distress and then fights a villain the police can't hope to defeat. And scene. With that, the devil is in the details, and let's go through them now.

The narrative is split about 50-50 from previous film versions and new stuff. Yes, Peter lives with Uncle Ben and Aunt May, but we learn his parents left him in their care long ago. Yes, Peter likes a cute girl, but this one is Gwen Stacy, a police captain's daughter, vs. aspiring actress Mary Jane Watson. Yes, Peter takes pictures, but as a hobby, not as a Daily Bugle photographer. Yes, there's a brilliant man transformed into the main villain, but it's Dr. Curt Connors as the Lizard vs. Norman Osborn as the Green Goblin. So yeah ... not a remake by any means, but not a total reboot, either, especially since our guy still gets that famous spider bite, explores the wonders of his new powers and then faces an epiphany after tragedy that leads him to don a red-and-blue second skin.

Setting aside comparisons to 2002 for now, let's talk pros and cons. Among the positives is the cast, starting with our leads. Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Spider-Man was solid. While everyone knows Andy from his Zuckerberg sidekick role in "The Social Network," I appreciated his chops in the little seen "Lions for Lambs." He doesn't do that much different here, and it will be interesting to see just how much range he has in the years ahead. But the attitude works fine in this case, even if I was distracted by his ever-poofier hair in the second half.

Even better was the often-winning Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy. Loved her in "Easy A," thought she was pretty good in "Crazy, Stupid, Love," "Zombieland" and "Superbad." Here she's quite natural as the pretty high schooler with a brain. Between her realistic rapport with Garfield and her family scenes, it's not hard to understand why Jim Carrey got starry-eyed -- albeit rather creepy.

Beyond these two, no real false notes. Rhys Ifans is a sympathetic Dr. Connors whose pursuit of healing drives him too far and into the land of scales. Denis Leary doesn't flex his muscles as Capt. Stacy but doesn't poop the bed, either. And old pros Martin Sheen and Sally Field carry their weight without breaking a sweat as Uncle Ben and Aunt May. So no harm there.

As for the action, it's perfectly good, but I have to admit in this CGI age -- and yes, I know not all of this was CGI -- I pretty much expect that. Nothing looked fake, but nothing blew my socks off. The fight scenes were nicely choreographed, and the swinging through the air was all well and good. I will give high marks for having Spidey use web shooters -- and explaining where the "web" came from -- vs. making the webs part of the spider bite aftermath. That's faithful to the comics, speaks to Peter Parker's smarts and is a big deal for me. It's the little things.

Add it up, and sure, this was a nice comic book movie and definitely watchable so soon after the last go-around. But here's the thing, in two parts. First, call it a wash with Version 2002. You can quibble about Garfield vs. Maguire, the special effects and other stuff, but in the end, neither of the movies is far superior to the other. If pressed, I'd probably got with Tobey and Sam, just because it came first and really moved the Spider-Man franchise forward. Hard to see this one doing that.

More important, I won't say Christopher Nolan is lapping these guys, but he certainly doesn't see them in his rearview mirror. Maybe this current Batman franchise is bleak, but it's both a huge departure from the overdone series of the '80s and '90s AND a poignant, thoughtful interpretation in its own right.

From the origin story in "Batman Begins" to just about everything with the Joker in "The Dark Knight," those movies have been a hell of a lot more interesting than this latest Spider-Man. And while I've always thought Spider-Man as a comic book character was more interesting than Batman, it's a safe bet the upcoming "The Dark Knight Rises" will make just about everyone forget Eduardo Saverin flinging his body among the skyscrapers. Maybe that's not fair, but that's the world we live in now. If you don't like it, go cry to Aunt May.