Lack of action, lack of good story

Rating: 6/10 (22 December 2004)

Many comments on IMDb (as well as a movie rating) say that this sequel is better than first Spider-Man movie. Personally, I don't think so. First of all the second movie was very slow, too slow for action movie and comic book adaptation. It is well-known that Spider-Man 2 had around 200 millions budget but I watched it very carefully and I simply haven't any idea for what they could spend so much money. Overall, the computer-generated visuals weren't bad but the central computer-generated character Dr. Octopus was a really bad thing. Bad character development and acting, ridiculous tentacles - all that made Dr. Octopus such a strong candidate for the worst villain of the year. Willem Dafoe as the Green Goblin in the first Spider-Man movie was simply brilliant compared to this guy. And in addition to that we got a colossal amount of dull and silly dialogs what supposed to carry some moral messages, but in fact they could carry only boredom. I don't know is it a true adaptation of the comic book or not, but anyway the story was lame, as well as the ending was ridiculous. I don't want to discuss here all possible plot holes because that would take too much time. But only one mention of a idea of drowning a fusion generator in a river should be enough for understanding a real stupidity of the script. So I warn you. The Spider-Man 2 can be a watchable movie but only if you don't expect much and turn your brains off before watching it.
My grade - 5.5 (I rated the first Spider-Man movie 7.5).