Very Overrated!!!

Rating: 4/10 (4 August 2004)

***POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW***
Now I was disappointed with the first Spiderman?.it just didn't seem to hit home with me as it seemed to with everyone else. The hype behind this Spiderman movie franchise is what drives it, because this sequel is just as good as the first..... in other words, not that good.
I've heard everyone, from most critics, including Ebert, to many of my peers, that this was simply a GREAT movie, guys like Ebert went so far as to say that Spiderman 2 is 'the greatest superhero movie ever'. I only have one thing to say to that: YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!
Did anyone see 'Batman' (1989)? Or how about 'Superman'? How could ANYONE compare this campy movie to those two superhero CLASSICS?? This flick does absolutely nothing new?more of Mary Jane looking and acting retarded, more of the CG Spiderman swinging all over NY, more of Peter Parker fumbling all over himself, and another villain who just drops by sparingly and engages in some unrealistic fight scene with Spidey. This was very lazy film-making IMO, they just handed the audience the same old formula used in the first one?making this sequel very dry, but somehow more campy and corny. I can't believe all of the praise this film is getting?.with talk about how its soooo much better than the first?it's basically the same movie!! Peter doesn't want to get with MJ for fear of luring her to danger, though he ends up doing it anyway; some villain was just born wreaking havoc all over NY, Parker's so-called best friend is jealous of him?yada yada yada. Spiderman is no 'superman', so how does he takes the falls and bumps he does and get up like nothing happened??
What makes the world of Batman so realistic is the fact that he can indeed get hurt. and it's easy to relate to him. Same with Superman; he actually has superpowers but still seemed more realistic than Spiderman here. Everything in Spiderman 2 just seemed so lame; he doesn't want to be Spiderman anymore, so just when things start to look up for Peter 'The Ultimate Loser' Parker, he quickly learns that they're not. All of a sudden because his 'mind' isn't into his crime-fighting occupation he can't do his basic abilities. Were the writers really serious with that? He got bit by a spider, so the spider traits are a PART of him! But no, just because he's having a hard time at school, can't pay his rent and is too much of a punk to confess his love to MJ, he can't scale walls and constantly runs out of web?? How ludicrous! Hell, I felt more sympathy for Doc Ock than I did for Peter Parker, he was just TOO MUCH of a loser for me to feel sorry for him. Kirsten 'Dunce' still sucks, she's just hideous. Tobey Maguire is average as Parker, he's too much of a wimp to be taken seriously IMO. Green Goblin's son tries to portray himself as some big shot, going to board meetings and what not?give me a break, he's like 20!! What's even worse is that they're setting up part 3 with him as the villain (yes Green Goblin yet again), wow that ought to be great! LOL please. Who absolutely stole the show to me was Jameson, the leader of the newspaper. He was hilarious; the only character I liked.
I'll just say this about Spiderman 2: Don't Believe The Hype! It's not as good as everyone's saying it is. I knew I'd be disappointed, because it was just common sense for me to realize that it couldn't be THAT much better than the very average original, contrary to what critics were saying. This is a very average, flawed movie that doesn't deserve to be even MENTIONED among the past great superhero movies.
** out of **** stars. This shouldn't last much longer on the Top 250 list.