Columbia Pictures | Release Date: June 30, 2004
8.6
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 1105 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
986
Mixed:
65
Negative:
54
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
2
TerryD.Jul 3, 2004
I guess I wouldn't make a very good movie producer because I would have shelved this thing and missed out on all the money it?s raking in. Why is it doing that I ask myself ? who knows because as far as I?m concerned this is nothing I guess I wouldn't make a very good movie producer because I would have shelved this thing and missed out on all the money it?s raking in. Why is it doing that I ask myself ? who knows because as far as I?m concerned this is nothing more than some touchy-feely love story, finding one self, soap opera with over-special-effected ?action? scenes. Heck, I got the feeling the only reason those were there at all was to break-up the monotony of Peter Parker wondering around being torn over his, life, loves, purpose, blah, blah, blah. Yikes, I paid money to see this dribble. Expand
3 of 12 users found this helpful
0
Gamer44Dec 5, 2012
my question is how did spider-man 2 score better than the first instalment. Spider-man 2 is 50 times worse than the first spider-man movie the story is worse,the acting is 100 times worse and toby maquire is acts more and more like a baboonmy question is how did spider-man 2 score better than the first instalment. Spider-man 2 is 50 times worse than the first spider-man movie the story is worse,the acting is 100 times worse and toby maquire is acts more and more like a baboon and is acting still sucks.How people liked this movie is mind boggling.one word to describe the movie "Terrible".Once again this is one of the worst movie sequels in the history of sequels. Expand
3 of 20 users found this helpful317
All this user's reviews
0
TheRealnessJul 4, 2006
[***SPOILERS***] Where to begin? The plot of this film is incoherent. Doctor Octopus needs those tentacles to...do what exactly? All he does with them in the lab scene (his lab in a residential space) is press a button. Later on, the villian [***SPOILERS***] Where to begin? The plot of this film is incoherent. Doctor Octopus needs those tentacles to...do what exactly? All he does with them in the lab scene (his lab in a residential space) is press a button. Later on, the villian robs a bank for...money that he will use to...do what? Buy lab equipment? Does anyone see the stupidity here? Why not just take what you want? The best of all: Doc Ock goes to James Franco and demands the precious McGuffin of 'tridium.' Rather than just ransack Franco's home and take it, or torture him and take it, Ock makes an unncessary deal to risk his life and hunt down Spider-Man for it. Smart. Onto the dialogue. What young people talk as Tobey and that hideous actress do in this film? 'Go get'em tiger?' Seriously? This is what happens when 50 year old Hollywood hacks write for allegedly cool young people. That the actors did not speak up proves they were out to cash a check. The public, inc. the critics, is brainwashed by an assault of hype into liking this dreck. People so desperately want to like it, that they overlook wack, weak plot and dialogue. 'It's just a summer movie,' is no excuse. Just because I am in a movie theater doesn't mean I have to check logic and common sense at the door. But in a culture where people are content eating fast food day in and day out while listening to Ashlee Simpson and reading US Weekly, why should anyone be suprised this movie is a hit? Kirsten Dunst is another issue altogether. Apparently just because someone is on a big screen or magazine covers, they become pretty. This girl's face in those ECU shots is downright scary. She belongs in an old Raimi zombie flick. But again, if you luck into a big role because you've been chasing fame since you were a child actress, then you just become pretty. Become famous in our society and suddenly you also become physically attractive? Finally, Raimi's cheese shots of people screaming is just wack camp. Much preferred Nolan's Batman. Expand
0 of 6 users found this helpful
1
MarkW.May 4, 2007
This was possibly the worst movie I have ever seen.
0 of 3 users found this helpful
1
AndrewM.Jul 8, 2004
This film was awful. The classic dilemma of Peter Parker simply does not translate to present day. Our hero is a man in love with a woman he can't have regardless of how many times he is forced to repel her advances. His obstacle to This film was awful. The classic dilemma of Peter Parker simply does not translate to present day. Our hero is a man in love with a woman he can't have regardless of how many times he is forced to repel her advances. His obstacle to ecstasy with MJ is his fear that his enemies might exploit the obvious weakness a superhero's girlfriend would inherently be. Who thinks this way? Any man, in a similar situation, would nail the chick without fear or remorse. This heroic dilemna is so alien to the audience they actually have to explicitly state the hero's dilemna. And...of course...in a truly risky casting move...NYC is cast as the innocent victim of the crime our Anthro-Arachnid friend must fight. What I find so absurd is the ridiculously high score awarded this film by the meta-critic crowd. Is everyone on the payroll of this film? Please Tobey...end it now and go back to independent film!!! Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
FrankR.Jul 4, 2006
Couple things... 1. Just because someone coined a lame, corny catch phrase for a character in a comic book for people with 3rd-grade reading comp is no excuse for using said lame line in a 200 million dollar film. 2. Just because the lame, Couple things... 1. Just because someone coined a lame, corny catch phrase for a character in a comic book for people with 3rd-grade reading comp is no excuse for using said lame line in a 200 million dollar film. 2. Just because the lame, corny, 'Go get'em tiger' line was used in the comic does not mean it is good, or should be used in the film version. 3. 3. If I want to read a comic, I'll buy a comic. If I want to go see a movie, even one BASED ON a comic, I hope to get a storyline and dialogue of higher quality than that offered in the comic. Spider-Man 2 fails to offer a coherent plot. It's dialogue is lame. Finally, even those die-hard comic fans will reject the 3rd installment of this crap-- Topher Grace as Venom. I'm no comic expert, but I thought Venom was, like, muscular and imposing. I also thought the costume was black with a white spider, not that corny-looking thing on the trailer. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful
3
LuiszJun 3, 2014
After the very good spider-man (2002), this sequel makes no sense, Peter is a loser who never does anything scientific as in the comic and has no charisma. The only good thing is Alfred Molina.
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews