It's 2026 And I Watched Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man For The First Time – Here Are My Honest Thoughts

When "The Amazing Spider-Man" came out in 2012, I didn't bother seeing it. Part of the reason why is that I had just graduated from college and had other things on my mind (like, for example, where I was going to live and how I was going to earn money to allow me to live there), but I also didn't feel a need to sit down and watch another "Spider-Man" movie. After all, I lived through the highs and lows of Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man" films in the aughts, so why did I need another one? What was the point of "The Amazing Spider-Man?"

14 years after its release, my editors suggested I check it out in advance of "Spider-Man: Brand New Day," the latest release in the third series of "Spider-Man" movies made in the 21st century. Spidey fatigue is, at this point, real. I had my doubts about Tom Holland's Marvel movies until I saw them and found them pretty charming. (Side note: What is in the water in the "Spider-Man" films where the actors playing Peter always end up dating their female co-leads? Dang.) So, what about "The Amazing Spider-Man," which was credited to writers James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent, and Steve Kloves, and directed by Marc Webb ("500 Days of Summer")?

"The Amazing Spider-Man" is not the best Spider-Man movie. In fact, I think it's something completely different. Through some neat directing tricks by Webb and thanks, in large part, to standout performances from every major player (Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, in particular), "The Amazing Spider-Man" insists upon itself and makes a compelling case for its own existence by taking a totally different approach to the material. Namely, it feels like a small independent movie that's happens to be about Spider-Man. 

The way that Marc Webb directs "The Amazing Spider-Man" is genuinely weird, and I mean that as a compliment. The narrative is almost identical to every other "Spider-Man" origin story, in that Peter Parker gets bitten by a spider, develops superpowers, tragically loses his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) to senseless violence, and becomes a masked vigilante in a homemade suit. Notably, though, the suit in question is definitely an upgrade from, say, that sad little situation Tobey Maguire's Peter cooks up at the beginning of Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man." Instead, in "The Amazing Spider-Man," Andrew Garfield's Peter has a real affinity for science, and he uses purloined tech from Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) to make his mask and spandex suit.

Not only do some aspects of "The Amazing Spider-Man" veer into borderline body horror, the shots that Webb composes throughout are visually interesting and, aside from the messy CGI that shows up towards the end when Connors goes full Lizard, the whole thing feels pared down and stripped back. Honestly, the thing that kept me the most engaged was the overall vibe and feel — again, that of an indie movie that is also about the famous comic book character Spider-Man.

This feels, to me, like a smart move on Webb's part; it prevents the entire thing from looking like a shot-for-shot remake of Raimi's first "Spider-Man" movie. Plus, the other thing that sets it apart from that film is the performances, which are ... pretty great across the board.

I feel bad calling "The Amazing Spider-Man" unnecessary, but let's be honest: it is. Just five years after Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man" trilogy concluded, we got a reboot because Sony wanted to retain the rights to the franchise and failed to come up with a more creative solution than simply smacking the restart button. With that said, I'm glad this movie exists, because the central performances are legitimately great.

Emma Stone, who has frankly never turned in a bad performance in her life (even managing to pull that off in the horrific "Movie 43"), is luminous as Gwen, someone who truly seems to be Peter's match in every way. Meanwhile, Martin Sheen plays one of the sternest and best Uncle Bens in the canon (which is certainly aided by his image as a fatherly TV president on "The West Wing" but works perfectly here), and Sally Field gives a layered sensitivity to Aunt May that nobody had fully managed before. As for Andrew Garfield, he's effortlessly charming and a delight to watch in every single scene, despite him quite obviously being in his 20s and playing a high-school student. He is, with my apologies to Tom Holland and Tobey Maguire, the best technical actor to ever play a live-action version of Peter. (Also, sorry, but I have to say: Garfield's Peter Parker is the hottest Peter Parker we've ever seen on screen. That moment where he shoots a web at Gwen, spins her into him, and makes out with her? Indisputably hot.)

"The Amazing Spider-Man" will remain the most forgettable "Spider-Man" movie, putting aside the factor of Garfield's "surprise" appearance in "Spider-Man: No Way Home." Still, in my opinion? It's worth watching — and it's on Disney+.