I don't think anyone bitten by a spider in the lab would get Spidey's powers. I think it's implied that the dad may have been experimenting with Peter and the spider bite was the final catalyst.

 There is zero implication that Peter was experimented on by his dad in the movie. That's something you're reading into the movie that isn't there. Plus, even if Peter's dad was experimenting on him, does that mean ANY animal that bit him would give him powers? So say he was bitten by a Chiuaua. Would he be able to yap at people super loud? 

There's no way his dad would be able to forsee that Peter would break into a lab filled with gentically altered spiders at Oscorp 15 years later. That's just poppycock. Yes, I said it. Poppycock. Because the word is as ridiculous as the theory.

DaForce that was the whole plot of Iron Man. A rich guy cleaning up his own mess and trying to find redemption for the mistakes he'd made. Did you not like that one? Captain America didn't help create the Red Skull in his movie. Thor was Loki's brother so I guess there was no getting around that but I actually think that gave the movie some weight. But in Avengers the characters all fought to do what was right, not to clean up their mess. I guess an argument could be made for Nolan's batman in being connected to the villians but I haven't seen that many (that I have in my DVD collection) where the characters are cleaning up their own messes. Don't know if that's a trend. 

Also I always thought Spider-Man 2 was the best of Raimi's films because it fleshed out the character and had a little more depth. The first one felt like a by the numbers superhero flick that anyone could have made. A few wacky camera angles and you know it's Raimi and that's about it. On part 2 however they brought in some big screenwriting talent and to me it showed. But it's funny because I have some friends that think the first one is the only good one. Everyone has a different taste. 

Just got back from an IMAX showing...totally loved it.....for me, it kicked the crap out of Rami's version....I found the story compelling and very well acted.....the action was great and The Lizzard was totally bad-ass....I think Garfield is a much better Spidey than Macguire was....

Man i was disappointed with this film, they should have released it before the Hulk....ooops Avengers movie. I liked the Raimi films better for sure. I wish they could've waited about 10 years or so for this movie.....but i guess theres money to be made. bad spidey, bad spidey!

 Wise, u on point.

 It did have a sort of been there, done that feel to it.

After seeing this movie Monday night, I went back and watched the first Raimi Spider-Man.  I think Toey's Peter Parker is the better representation of that character.  Garfield was the better Spider-Man side of the character.  Did anyone else think it was weird though that Spidey had a Jersey accent?  Maybe it's because I'm not from NYC but it sound more Jersey than NY.  Just sayin'.

Also, I'm getting a little tired of the "New Yorkers stick together...We're the greatest people in the world" deal that all the Spidey films seem to have.  It was understandable given the time that Spidey 1 came out, but after that, it just got boring and unnecessary...and a little annoying.

I didn't see anything in this to tie into the Avengers Universe.  Plus this is Sony and not Disney, so it ain't happening anyway...get over it.

Overall I thought this new flick was good, but again it seemed to lack something.  At first I thought it lacked the heart of the Raimi movies.  The more I think about it I think it was lacking a memorable theme.  Nothing stood out to me and I really can't even recall what the music sounded like.

I think the B grade given in the review is accurate.

Regarding the final sceen, something struck me after watching the film a second time.  In the very first sequence of the fim, young parker is playing hide n' seek.  He finds the pair of shoes behind the curtain and the broom falls out.  There is a shot of a hat and that hat looks very similar to the one shown in the final scene.  My theory is that shadowy figure in Conner's cell is Richard Parker in disguise.  It kind of bookmarks the film at the beginning and end in a way and we know there is more to come regarding his parents in the future films.

Well you know some of us can read deeper into things that aren't spelled out for you and jump to a logical conclusion.

Helios have to disagree with your guess there. The guy in the shadows sounded almost threatening towards Peter and even Connors pleaded for him to leave him alone.

I had my doubts going into this but saw this yesterday and I loved it. Andrew Garfield actually looks and feels like he should be Spiderman. He is gangly and goofy just the way I remember Spiderman being and they gave him the dialogue to match his comic book wittiness. Emma Stone is fantastic also and when you put Garfield and Stone together they are just brilliant. You actually feel for these kids which is something that I do not remember doing from the other Spidey films but in all honesty I was not a fan of Kirsten Dunst anyway.
The movie didn't really have any easter eggs that I know of or at least I did not notice any and the after credits scene had me kind of scratching my head but the whole parents are spies thing that they had going on in the 90's comics, well I never really paid much attention to.

Overall I think the story was pretty good, the special effects were top notch and the acting was fantastic.

I would give this new incarnation of Spider-Man a well deserved A .