A better "movie" than part 1, a worse "spiderman film" than part 1

Rating: Null/10 (20 July 2004)

Special effects were great, story was alright...acting...well, it sucked. I'm sorry, MJ was awful.
I'm not going to break down the specifics, but if you have read Spiderman over the years you'll notice Hollywood showed it's evil head once again. While it's obviously a "spiderman" film, the fact he shoots webs and wears a read spiderman costume are a few of the things they got right...where as they got a LOT more wrong.
People who don't follow spiderman do not need to read on and on about how different it is, as they really won't care. People who follow spiderman won't need to read what the differences are, they are obvious. I have yet to speak to a person who follows spiderman who beleived this film to be a triumph.
Was it a good movie? Yes. Is it the best "superhero" film? I think so. Unfortunatly for people who have followed Spiderman over the years, this was a let down. It's like watching Rocky for the first time if you love boxing. It's just too far from the original idea.
Hollywood...I'm tired of you. I'm sick of it. Please don't ruin OLDBOY with Bad Pitt, and DO NOT put Keanu Reeves in Casshern when you ruin it with your remake.
What is wrong with the original Spiderman? The comic has been selling for years and years, but apparently hollywood decided they needed to add more to the character...well, sorry...you flopped