Horrible for something that should've been better

Rating: 1/10 (6 July 2002)

With the expectation that the summer 2002 season was to be one of the most exciting in years for moviegoers, I was hopeful that the fierce competition would rub off in finally bringing about the better qualities often lacking in blockbusters these days. Not only did Spider Man fail in that regard, but I was quite disappointed by the fact that it actually had the potential to be a very a decent film. The liberal use of cliches which I wasn't expecting really caught me off guard. Didn't these guys learn anything from the dismal Batman 4 movie? That wasn't the worst part, however. The wooden acting by what should've been a stellar cast, at least on paper, fell flat on its back, while the continuity and lackadaisical visual effects suggested to me that this was a rush job. How the heck duffers like this and ~Batman & Robin~ were even allowed to see the light of day, and still be able to pull in as much money as they did is totally mind-boggling and disheartening. This I can only attribute to "business as usual" in Hollywood.... it's less a matter of quality, and one more of hype and hype and hype w/TV commercials until the masses come a flocking like sheep to a shepherd. Baa-aa-aa-ah! If somebody recommends to you that this movie is great and you should go and see it, don't believe them! If you're curious, just wait until it comes out on video and rent it for $1. You'll feel a whole lot better knowing that you could've wasted an extra $9 (but didn't) at the AMC for this bile garbage!