Spiderman?

Rating: 1/10 (20 July 2004)

Apart from the action scenes - which were a very minimal part of the movie, it sucked. The CGI was way to clearly CGI (not as bad as in the first-one however). This movie - and I'm not talking about all the errors that slipped in (which were a lot - and annoyed me throughout the whole movie) - isn't a spiderman movie at all... It has way too much romantic crap, this seems a Pearl Harbor/Titanic ripoff with all it's cliché's that come with it for free. That's not what a real spiderman-fan wants to see, not that I am one, but I know some guys that were really really disappointed. OK that you have some romance I can understand - but this? It was way over the top. It's not even worked out very well - has plot-holes everywhere, and one blatant thing
that is so completely against the whole spiderman-story concept.
That this movie ends up in the top 250 is unbelievable for me, what was so good about it? The acting? The plot/story? The CGI? The action-scenes? I've seen much better in a lot cheaper productions. Yes, the action scenes were nice from time to time - but it's a freakin' spiderman movie! What would you expect? People actually seem to believe that this money-making blockbuster is actually better than Rain Man (place 214 at the time in top250, while SP2 has place 212), I would rather place it in the regions of Godzilla.
Guess that the big score is because of the romantic and "drama" parts in it. People should really see more movies, this-one was utter crap. 2/10 for me.