I liked it quite a bit better than any of the previous Spider-Mans, mainly because I like the cast better, and the director and the composer.
Script wise it's mostly a wash.
I would be interested in seeing a longer cut should one become available in the future.
Seriously - I really enjoyed the film. My girlfriend, on the other hand, didn't care for it for many points that I firmly agree with. We both thought it was pointless to retell Spider-Man's origin. It almost felt like the creators wanted Spider-Man back in high school, because that is where they concentrated so much of the story on. Except they cast actors who are clearly too old to be in high school...
Either way, I enjoyed the cast much more than the Raimi versions. I have never been impressed with Toby Mcquire, and the less said about Kirsten Dunst the better.
I do enjoy that they went for a grittier take on Spider-Man in that they made it quite clear that he can be hurt. Even with super powers, he was never meant to be bullet proof. However, even with their nod to realism, the movie is clearly set in a comic book universe where people can be thrown against walls without suffering broken bones or concussions.
I may have missed something, but the movie seemed to gloss over how he got his powers. Sure, there was a spider bite, but what was different about that particular spider? All we were shown was Peter walking into a room full of spiders in a lab we know is working on cross species genetics. Were the spiders specifically genetically engineered to give super powers???
While it would be a very cool twist that reveal that Spider-Man was deliberately created, that was never made clear in this film. Possible sequel fodder?
A slight spoilery comment about the end - at one point Spider-Man nearly falls of the edge of a building after his web sligers are destroyed and has to be saved. I turned to my girlfriend and said "good thing Spider-Man can stick to walls. Whoops! I guess he can't now".