Spider-Man 2

User Score
8.2

Universal acclaim- based on 826 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 71 out of 826
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 12, 2013
    5
    Spider-man 2 doesn't excite.
    Just a continuation of the average Peter Parker with the same powers, the same problems, and the same girl that he can't seem to get. Spider-man 2 plays out an unrealistic villain with cheesy dialogue and no real spectacular elements.
  2. Dec 9, 2011
    6
    Pretty much the same as I felt about the previous film. I didnt like the acting much but the action was good and it was entertaining for the most part. It could get rather dull though and that did take away from it.
  3. Jun 22, 2012
    6
    Spider-Man 2 has a good villain but Raimi thinks he can fit such emotional drama with a little love story that the movie would've been fine without. Doc Oct was a great villain who was played perfectly and who could have stole the show, if not for Kirsten Dunst and her stupid part.
  4. LiamS.
    Jul 9, 2004
    6
    This movie has good elements and awful elements. The good: Alfred Molina. He is a wonderful villain in every respect as Doc Ock. Leaps and bounds (if you pardon the expression) better than Willem Dafoe from the first film. Molina saves the picture - he is a complex character, tortured and noble at the same time. A wonderful performance. The bad: the horrible, forced interplay between Mary This movie has good elements and awful elements. The good: Alfred Molina. He is a wonderful villain in every respect as Doc Ock. Leaps and bounds (if you pardon the expression) better than Willem Dafoe from the first film. Molina saves the picture - he is a complex character, tortured and noble at the same time. A wonderful performance. The bad: the horrible, forced interplay between Mary Jane and Peter. The lines are terrible and the actors (Dunst and Maguire) need brain transplants. The lines were ridiculous and unbelievable. In this respect, I agree with some of the other reviewers on this subject. I realize that the romantic subplot is necessary to ensnare the teen girls who see this film, but seriously now. At least the storyline needs to be realistic. (And don't even get me started on the ugly performance given by James Franco. James: go to acting school. Please!) Expand
  5. PeterP.
    Jul 9, 2004
    6
    Anyone who's read the comics for years: remember the infamous (and tedious) issues that began with the cover showing Peter in the background walking away from a garbage can in the foreground, containing the last thing you'd ever think he'd throw out? THAT'S the subplot that has fans complaining about the flick and professional critics raving. Just as that months-long Anyone who's read the comics for years: remember the infamous (and tedious) issues that began with the cover showing Peter in the background walking away from a garbage can in the foreground, containing the last thing you'd ever think he'd throw out? THAT'S the subplot that has fans complaining about the flick and professional critics raving. Just as that months-long drama was tedious in the books, so is the second act of the film. BUT everyone involved in the movie did exceptionally well, and once the action finally kicks in again, it's worth the price of admission... it's just tough to get through the middle and early final third of the film without glancing at your watch at least once. I'd say New York Magazine and ReelViews' critiques hit the nail right on the head. Expand
  6. JeffR
    Jul 2, 2004
    6
    Wow, everyone seems to have loved this one - i personally thought it was pretty mediocre, as i wasnt really all that excited through much of it and they could have cut a half hour off it, namely out of the mushy lovey dovey staring-at-each-other-with -puppy-dog-eyes scenes. i dont hate romance, but it felt forced at times and i go to spider man movies to have fun and see webslinging, notWow, everyone seems to have loved this one - i personally thought it was pretty mediocre, as i wasnt really all that excited through much of it and they could have cut a half hour off it, namely out of the mushy lovey dovey staring-at-each-other-with -puppy-dog-eyes scenes. i dont hate romance, but it felt forced at times and i go to spider man movies to have fun and see webslinging, not to stare into kirsten dunst's eyes for an hour at a time (i'm not even going to go into how bad she was for the part, and how unattractive she really is in this movie, since it's really an issue with the first flick that has carried over). the action was good when it came, and doc ock was a pretty good villain even if the whole two-personalities-in-one-head thing was already done in the last movie. the last 45 minutes really earned this one 3 of the points i gave it, but it was disappointing that it took soooo long to find it's groove. Expand
  7. rico
    Dec 7, 2004
    6
    I agree with GMDK. There's only so much "poor, poor Peter" one can take.
  8. MaltBeer
    Jul 12, 2004
    5
    Descent. A little borring at points. The actor who played Doc. Oct needed more screen time, both for the understanding of his humanity, and to see more carnage when he went pyscho! The articulation of the arms was amazing, but the acting and content of the movie was pretty lame.
  9. VernG.
    Jul 16, 2004
    4
    This movie went way too far with its theme of the internal struggle between being a superhero and living a normal life. Way too angsty for my taste, and the movie seemed to beg too much pity out of me (No free toaster, not able to use the bathroom, living in a tiny apartment) than I was willing to give... I'm not going to say that I was mad because there wasn't enough action in This movie went way too far with its theme of the internal struggle between being a superhero and living a normal life. Way too angsty for my taste, and the movie seemed to beg too much pity out of me (No free toaster, not able to use the bathroom, living in a tiny apartment) than I was willing to give... I'm not going to say that I was mad because there wasn't enough action in the movie, but I was dissapointed that his internal struggle was focused on, and EVERYONE had a lesson to teach him. (Aunt May's speech made me want to rip out my hair) A few scenes made me laugh, (of course, not due to their comedy roots) such as the constant 'Zoom in on person screaming' effect and 'Metal arms bury through crowd of people to grab old lady'... In conclusion, besides the fact that it was not what I expected it to be at all, the ending really makes me wonder how in the world they're going to compile a Spiderman 3. Expand
  10. GaborA.
    Jul 2, 2004
    5
    Utterly overrated but not mind bogglingly so like people say it is. Of course everyones going to like this movie. "it has action and heart." yeah thats great. Plot is attempted to be substituted by concept. This concept ofcourse is the typical responsibilites and sacrifices of the hero stuff so im confussed as to why everyone takes this as an original move. The biggest flaw of the movie Utterly overrated but not mind bogglingly so like people say it is. Of course everyones going to like this movie. "it has action and heart." yeah thats great. Plot is attempted to be substituted by concept. This concept ofcourse is the typical responsibilites and sacrifices of the hero stuff so im confussed as to why everyone takes this as an original move. The biggest flaw of the movie is that it opens the box on all the great should be kept secrects like spiderman's identity. Meanwhile things that are illogically concealed wont be made evident for the purpose of continuing the series. When Harry looks you in the face and says you killed my father im going to kill you. Do you a.) dodge the issue once again and say "theres bigger thing going on than me an you right now." or B.) do the obvious and say a couple of simple words "your dad was the green goblin you morron thats why i had to kill him." Part three will be the Hobgoblin vs. Spiderman meaning once again it will be scitsophranic-esque villian versus super hero with "human qualities." It never was original but now its getting flat out annoying. Expand
  11. AlwYzzle
    Jul 2, 2004
    6
    The First One was better than this load of self-indulgment of special effects. I give it this rating mostly to the cheesiness (and thats the generic cheese) the director added into this movie, such as the "crowd surfing" scene of Spiderman, and the how the hands of DOC OCT were given personalities. Watch it again and tell me i'm not telling the TRUTH. Cut it when it needs to be cut!
  12. DavidG.
    Jan 16, 2005
    5
    "The greatest comic book movie of all time". I think that everyone is forgetting how much this movie rips off Superman 2. He wants to tell the woman he loves he's a hero, but he can't. He gives up his powers in order to be with her. Coincidently he's also fighting his greatest enemy. His girlfriend is kidnapped. He has to get his powers back and fight. He realizes there "The greatest comic book movie of all time". I think that everyone is forgetting how much this movie rips off Superman 2. He wants to tell the woman he loves he's a hero, but he can't. He gives up his powers in order to be with her. Coincidently he's also fighting his greatest enemy. His girlfriend is kidnapped. He has to get his powers back and fight. He realizes there will always be a need for the hero, but he is somehow going to have to balance it with his love life. The only thing original in this movie is Doc Ock, and they had to get him from a comic book. Expand
  13. G.M.D.K.
    Dec 3, 2004
    6
    This movie shouldnt be called "spiderman 2", it should be called "the unfortunate life of Peter Parker".
  14. ChrisG.
    Jun 30, 2004
    6
    I really wanted to like this movie, but I failed to. Sam Raimi couldn't take any scene seriously without going overboard and causing laughter in the theatre. The plot felt like it was just way too coincedental. The movie is way too long for what it is.
  15. MarkM.
    Jun 30, 2004
    4
    It really fell short of my expectations, since the hype and the reviews were soaring high. The movie is like a soap opera that uses the superhero concept as its main theme. The plot is too obvious and too shallow. It was the cheesiest movie that I've seen in years without the intention of becoming one. The action was ok, but I expected more. It was just all flying and swinging. And It really fell short of my expectations, since the hype and the reviews were soaring high. The movie is like a soap opera that uses the superhero concept as its main theme. The plot is too obvious and too shallow. It was the cheesiest movie that I've seen in years without the intention of becoming one. The action was ok, but I expected more. It was just all flying and swinging. And the acting was just like it came from a 60's movie, with extras screaming like they're in a Godzilla set. It was really disappointing. Nevertheless, it's still Spiderman and everyone will still watch it. Defintely, the first one for me is better. At least, it was not trying hard so much to be the movie event of the year. Expand
  16. PatC.
    Jul 19, 2004
    5
    M.G.B. is right - this movie went too far in appealing to the masses. It really is a great movie, perhaps the best movie ever made about a comic book hero, and probably deserves a 10 in the slick production department. Well lit, definative characters, engaging plot, and has something for everyone. I especially enjoyed the observation that reciting T.S. Eliot to chicks turns them on, M.G.B. is right - this movie went too far in appealing to the masses. It really is a great movie, perhaps the best movie ever made about a comic book hero, and probably deserves a 10 in the slick production department. Well lit, definative characters, engaging plot, and has something for everyone. I especially enjoyed the observation that reciting T.S. Eliot to chicks turns them on, although the average bloke has no idea what such poetry means. And Spiderman's empathy for the predicament of his nemisis Dr. Octopus was touching and relevant. It has been a long time since I watched a movie I wanted to like. But, as in Superman, Hollywood malignant narcissism remains irrepressibly virulent. The film deftly corrects any lingering childhood impression that a comic book hero can forego a romantic relationship for a selfless love of mankind. In the end, Dunst's character becomes suitably empowered to assert her feminine priorities and subvert Spiderman's quest to supress his attraction to her for the greater good. Once again Eve offers Adam the apple, Adam takes a juicy bite, and another of a diminishing list of individualistic childhood heroes is tidily dispatched. Right up to the end this movie was on track to become the Casablanca of our generation, but the folks who made this movie don't understand T.S. Eliot either. They are Eliot's hollow men, headpieces filled with straw and leading the world to a whimpering end. Thanks a bunch. Expand
  17. KerenS.
    Jul 28, 2004
    6
    wrong, wrong, wrong.. this was not a good second movie. i was very disappointed. i felt like a re-hash of no 1 the only good partd wheres harry osborn and doc oc. this film was more like the hulk the a good second spider man. i mean how many time can spiderman be unmasked in one film not inpressed at all.. to mush spider man vs peter parker, not enough spider man vs octupus...not impressed.
  18. TimP.
    Jul 5, 2004
    5
    Sure, it was better than the original, but that is not saying much at all! Everyone was praising this movie as the superior one before it even came out because the trailer was better than the entire first film. The CG effects are still not entirely convincing, Toby Maguire still looks 14, and James Franco as Harry is a lesson to all that looks not talent can still get you roles. Sure, it was better than the original, but that is not saying much at all! Everyone was praising this movie as the superior one before it even came out because the trailer was better than the entire first film. The CG effects are still not entirely convincing, Toby Maguire still looks 14, and James Franco as Harry is a lesson to all that looks not talent can still get you roles. Didn't anyone want to puke at the dialogue? And the whole New Yorkers being heroic in the train? Pathetic... My rating of 3 is for most of the scenes with Doc Ock in them. Trust me, you will all forget this film in three years when you are tired of watching the DVD and CG effects will be much much better... Expand
  19. NeilK.
    Aug 29, 2004
    6
    [***PLOT REVELATIONS***] Yes, it IS better than the first. BUT, do we really need to set up the next "episode" quite so heavy handedly? More importantly, let me get this straight... Peter no longer has "super spider" powers because in his heart he doesn't REALLY want them? How ultra LAME is that??? It completely waters down what Peter/Spidey is truly going through. Let's not[***PLOT REVELATIONS***] Yes, it IS better than the first. BUT, do we really need to set up the next "episode" quite so heavy handedly? More importantly, let me get this straight... Peter no longer has "super spider" powers because in his heart he doesn't REALLY want them? How ultra LAME is that??? It completely waters down what Peter/Spidey is truly going through. Let's not forget that his "secret" identity is known by everyone in NYC, except J. Jonah Jameson?!?!?!?!? This was a good solid comic book movie, nothing more. Entertaining? Yes. A good film? Yeah, I guess so. A great film? Not even close. Expand
  20. David
    Jan 8, 2006
    4
    I guess you have to be a Spidey fan in order to love this movie. Still, I don't see how anyone can defend the horrible performances from James Franco or Kirsten Dunst. I guess if you're the kind of person who doesn't mind an awful line like "go get em tiger", you will love this movie. I mean I can identify with Peter Parker. Like Doc Ock says I am also "smart, but lazy". I I guess you have to be a Spidey fan in order to love this movie. Still, I don't see how anyone can defend the horrible performances from James Franco or Kirsten Dunst. I guess if you're the kind of person who doesn't mind an awful line like "go get em tiger", you will love this movie. I mean I can identify with Peter Parker. Like Doc Ock says I am also "smart, but lazy". I also have no idea how to talk to women. I should love this movie, but I can't look past the fact that it is not very well done. And stop talking about the special effects. They don't make a movie great. Especially when that movie rips off Superman II. If this movie had won Oscars, it would have been the most overrated movie of all time. Expand
  21. ArnieG.
    Apr 27, 2007
    4
    Extremely overrated. Unbearably corny and sappy by times. Although I'm sure this is straight from the comics but why does Peter have to know all his villians personally before they become villians? I find this unrealistic plot point distracting but I'm willing to get over it if the movie worked...which I found only when the action kicked in gear. I loved the first Spidey, Extremely overrated. Unbearably corny and sappy by times. Although I'm sure this is straight from the comics but why does Peter have to know all his villians personally before they become villians? I find this unrealistic plot point distracting but I'm willing to get over it if the movie worked...which I found only when the action kicked in gear. I loved the first Spidey, thought it was stylish and rang true...here's hoping that Spidey 3 is more like the first. Expand
  22. MichaelM.
    Oct 21, 2004
    5
    Everyone raved about this one! I didn't care for it. I thought the first was so much better than this. Spider-Man 2 is just so sappy and sentimental, it makes you forget what the original comic book stood for. It focuses on Peter Parker dealing with life problems, instead of Spider-Man kicking ass and taking names. There is a reason it's called Spider-Man, and not Peter Parker. Everyone raved about this one! I didn't care for it. I thought the first was so much better than this. Spider-Man 2 is just so sappy and sentimental, it makes you forget what the original comic book stood for. It focuses on Peter Parker dealing with life problems, instead of Spider-Man kicking ass and taking names. There is a reason it's called Spider-Man, and not Peter Parker. Alfred Molina made for a cool villian, except for at the end when he decided to turn good and help people. I have to say, I did enjoy Bruce Campell's cameo. But that's about it. Despite what the critics tell you, wait for DVD. Expand
  23. RobynR
    Jul 11, 2004
    5
    Like some of the others here, the melodramatic and tedious middle bits in particular lost my interest entirely. the action was great and ock a worthy villain (better than the first movie), plus i'm all for the romantic subplot, BUT the attempt to develop maguire's character got in the way of what could have been a much better film where he kicked butt and eventually got the Like some of the others here, the melodramatic and tedious middle bits in particular lost my interest entirely. the action was great and ock a worthy villain (better than the first movie), plus i'm all for the romantic subplot, BUT the attempt to develop maguire's character got in the way of what could have been a much better film where he kicked butt and eventually got the girl. overall i'm among the minority who found the original much more entertaining, but that might be because i'm ignorant of spidey's "real" (comic book) story & found the superfluous stuff out of place & distracting. Expand
  24. PrestonF.
    Jul 11, 2004
    6
    Surprisingly lame special effects, and an equally lame and predictable plot all conspire against Spidey.
  25. M.G.
    Jul 13, 2004
    5
    Yet another frustrating comic book adaptation. The things this movie does well (Doc Ock, Spidey's web slinging, the fight scenes) are completely offset by the vapid acting/love scenes, and the rediculous liberties the writers take with spidey's history. I wanted to poke my eardrums out listening to MJ whine about Peter Parker not loving her, while she's in the midst of Yet another frustrating comic book adaptation. The things this movie does well (Doc Ock, Spidey's web slinging, the fight scenes) are completely offset by the vapid acting/love scenes, and the rediculous liberties the writers take with spidey's history. I wanted to poke my eardrums out listening to MJ whine about Peter Parker not loving her, while she's in the midst of planning a wedding. This "soap opera crud" is what passes as deep, moving, emotional story? A good meal of refried beans would do more for most people. 20 plus years ago, The Empire Strikes Back proved you can create a spectacular movie WITH a great love story that ADDS to the quality of the script. Take a hint Raimi. A lot of us grumbled when they gave Spidey "mutated web spinners", instead of the mechanical ones Parker invented in the comics, but we put up with it. Now we see the true reason... so they could insert another insipid plot device to malfunction during Parker's moments of emotional crisis. This is called LAZY SCRIPT WRITING. What's with Spidey taking his mask at the most inopportune times? More liberties taken to make up for lazy script writing. For the millions spent on movies like this, isn't there someone intelligent enough to write interesting stories that remain true to the history of the comics? I guess not. For the last time... STOP CHANGING CLASSIC COMICS TO APPEAL TO THE MASSES, AND THE BOTTOM LINE!!! Expand
  26. ColinB.
    Jul 22, 2004
    6
    May be it?s just me but I for one just couldn?t get into this. I felt the first was great despite the at times hockey CGI but the original movie always felt complete. This appeared a little disjointed. I might need to see this again. The action was fantastic - epic comic book stuff but overall it just didn?t FLOW. it had great the comedic moments but may be a little to funny? *spoiler May be it?s just me but I for one just couldn?t get into this. I felt the first was great despite the at times hockey CGI but the original movie always felt complete. This appeared a little disjointed. I might need to see this again. The action was fantastic - epic comic book stuff but overall it just didn?t FLOW. it had great the comedic moments but may be a little to funny? *spoiler alert* I felt that Spiderman?s identity should have remained a secret in the train sequence...Also i couldn?t get over the two big plot holes, why does dock ock need cash? possibly to place orders over the net? Also why strike up a bargain with Harry, surely he could have threatened to crush him to a pulp? Sure ..picky picky picky I hear you say?but this is SPIDER-MAN folks. May be your right! Please don?t let this review put you off its still a great film, its just that I love the character so much. Best enjoyed when your brain is in, ?don?t think too much? mode. Enjoy 6/10. Expand
  27. PaulM.
    Jul 31, 2004
    4
    You know the story needs more care when every plot point hinges on some one-in-a-million coincidence. By the fifth or so I was pulling my own hair. And the dramatic bits were invariably forced, over-the-top, too heavy-handedly sage. You know the character development needs more care when the audience is expected to consciously, actively, and continually take for granted the You know the story needs more care when every plot point hinges on some one-in-a-million coincidence. By the fifth or so I was pulling my own hair. And the dramatic bits were invariably forced, over-the-top, too heavy-handedly sage. You know the character development needs more care when the audience is expected to consciously, actively, and continually take for granted the characters' motivations. The most depressing part of this movie the potential it didn't live up to. Spidey is a naturally lovable comic hero. The action scenes were great. The direction and photography likewise. Casting and acting were fine. And the fun bits were as much fun as i can remember having with any comic hero movie. I wish hollywood would realize that just because special effects sell tickets doesn't mean thier scripts should be treated as some secondary matter of formality. Expand
Metascore
83

Universal acclaim - based on 41 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 37 out of 41
  2. Negative: 0 out of 41
  1. Raimi doesn't make the mistake of over-thinking the flimsy psychology of the genre. All this conflicted-hero stuff isn't meant to be profound; instead, it's there for the same reason as everything else -- to give the action (the interior action in this case) a healthy shot of pop energy.
  2. Reviewed by: M. E. Russell
    91
    Spider-Man 2 succeeds in pretty much the same way "Superman II" did -- only more so.
  3. This movie, directed with precision and an appreciation for (relatively) rich character texture by Sam Raimi, remembers all the fine elements of the original film (and the comic book story). It reprises them perfectly, including wonderfully choreographed, skyscraper-hanging fights.