To view our videos, you need to
enable JavaScript. Learn how.
install Adobe Flash 9 or above. Install now.

Then come back here and refresh the page.

It was only 10 years ago that Spider-Man hit the screen with Tobey Maguire in the lead role. Now there's a reboot of the story with Andrew Garfield as the famed web-slinger.

If you saw the 2002 Sam Raimi flick or if you're familiar with the comic book it's based on, you know the drill. A kid from Queens, Peter Parker, gets bitten by a radioactive spider, which gives him the ability to climb walls like a spider. He also shoots webs from his arms allowing him to swing between buildings.

There's also a love interest. This time it's a different character, named Gwen Stacy, played by Emma Stone, who knows that Parker is really Spider-Man.

But it's still all too familiar. And that's basically my gripe here and it's a big one. I don't want to see this same story again.

The makers of the most recent Superman film had the good sense not to start over with the origin of that character. They recast the man of steel and at least told us a different tale.

With hundreds of Spider-Man comic book stories to choose from, the makers of this new Spider-Man, for some unfathomable reason, tell the same tale that was told in great fashion in 2002 and do it in an inferior way.

Andrew Garfield is not believable as a nerdy kid before he gets his superpowers. Hence, it's not believable when he gets beat up by a high school bully. Tobey Maguire was much truer to the essence of the comic book character.

It's hard to root for Garfield's Spider-Man. The script is wooden and most of it is just plain boring. The giant lizard monster is also unconvincing.

As a romantic lead, Emma Stone was better than Kirsten Dunst and the special effects are marginally better than they were 10 years ago. The 3D is also pretty cool and I liked Denis Leary.

But it's not enough of a reason to justify remaking this thing. Rent the original and its two sequels if you want a good spidey fix.