Advertising for “The Amazing Spider-Man” heralds the reboot as “the untold story” of web-slinging teenager Peter Parker and his mysterious past. Don’t be fooled.

The new film, released a little over 10 years after the first “Spider-Man” movie, is no novelty. It’s the “well and frequently told” story of how Peter Parker is bitten by a radioactive spider that gives him superpowers. And with great power comes great responsibility and blah, blah, blah.

It’s the same movie, folks. Only the actors and some of the details have changed. Instead of Mary Jane Watson, it’s Gwen Stacy. Instead of a power-hungry villain in a green suit of armor, it’s a power hungry villain with green scales.

And yet despite this crushing feeling of been-there, done-that, “The Amazing Spider-Man” does quite a few things right.

For one, the casting is terrific. Andrew Garfield (“The Social Network”) provides Peter Parker with the right combination of teenage awkwardness and whiny angst. And his crush, Gwen Stacy, played by the always terrific Emma Stone, is the whip-smart dream girl-next-door. Garfield and Stone have such natural chemistry that their quiet scenes of courtship prove to be far more exciting than the generic CGI action that dominates the film’s second half.

Sally Field and Martin Sheen play Peter’s loving aunt and uncle – two great actors that ease the pain of watching the same story beats all over again. And Rhys Ifans plays Dr. Curt Connors, the one-armed scientist who eventually mutates into The Lizard. Ifans tries to infuse a personality into the villain, but his overall arc is entirely circumstantial to the plot of the film. Spider-Man simply needs a beast to fight on top of a skyscraper.

“Amazing Spider-Man” is a solid directorial effort from Marc Webb, a filmmaker with only the romantic-comedy, “(500) Days of Summer” under his belt. His action sequences are competent, and Spider-Man’s web-slinging is more realistic looking thanks to better CGI (and better application of physics) than the 2002 film.

It may not be fair to judge “Amazing Spider-Man” based on its similarities to the original film. Still, the film’s backers chose to tell the Spider-Man origin story again despite already telling it fairly well just 10 years ago. A few tweaks here and there don’t add up to a compelling viewing experience. There needs to be a significant change in vision to make a reboot worthwhile, and “Amazing Spider-Man” unfortunately falls into the ever-growing pile of generic and forgettable superhero movies.

Now, a movie about Peter Parker’s long-absent parents and how they connect to Peter’s transformation into Spider-Man would have been a compelling new vision. Pity “Amazing Spider-Man” removes all traces of this story strand after the first 20 minutes. Even the film’s television commercials contained related lines of dialogue that were removed from the final cut. Clearly they’re saving us something for the sequel.

At least now the groundwork has been set. “Spider-Man 2” was the best of the Sam Raimi movies, so maybe the next “Amazing Spider-Man” entry will be something special. But why couldn’t we just skip ahead? The drama isn’t really about how Peter Parker learns that with great power comes great responsibility. It’s about living with that responsibility and overcoming the challenges that come with that responsibility.

But hey, “The Amazing Spider-Man” lets us see a spider bite Peter Parker. Again.

Grade: B-