User Score
8.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 730 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 70 out of 730
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. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. FerandoT.
    Jul 8, 2004
    3
    Nothing special... history is a little boring... only a few FX are interesting.
  7. Carmen
    Jul 1, 2004
    3
    I cannot believe this movie has gotten such high reviews. It's a terrible film. The first one was pretty good, without being great or anything but this is just as if someone had been paid to screw it up on purpose, starting by the script. Was the movie intended for a five year old audience? All that inner conflict of the characters was so shallow and laughable, not even the action I cannot believe this movie has gotten such high reviews. It's a terrible film. The first one was pretty good, without being great or anything but this is just as if someone had been paid to screw it up on purpose, starting by the script. Was the movie intended for a five year old audience? All that inner conflict of the characters was so shallow and laughable, not even the action scenes saved this movie. Expand
  8. MarkR.
    Jul 22, 2004
    3
    2 hours for an action movie, please! Found it hard to sit through the entire thing. & really subtle introduction to the next movie too...
  9. MikeT.
    Jul 6, 2004
    3
    Half of the time Spidy is running around in the movie without cap - which is weird - then he is paranoid, full of self doubt, and there is just too much zap. It's more a children's book movie then superhero movie. Movie is boring I don't know what the hype is all about.
  10. Dmk
    Jul 7, 2004
    3
    What's really fascinating is the gamut of reviews for this movie. Its one of those love it or hate it. As for me, I grew up reading Spider-Man, and this movie is boring and cheesy. Of all the comic book movies, only X-Men has gotten my approval.
  11. DanaM.
    Jul 8, 2004
    3
    Sorry, I don't get the hoopla for this movie. Special effects are quite good but the dialogue is torture, and this movie is mostly dialogue. I still don't know how Toby Maguire got this role. Seems all this movie did was set up future sequels. Very disappointing from someone who loves these types of movies.
  12. Jun 3, 2014
    3
    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.
  13. MattP.
    Jun 30, 2004
    2
    Tedious and repetitive, CGI that makes the building-to-building leaps look like a bad videogame, lousy acting, lazy and uninspired direction of non-action scenes. Saved by an Evil Dead homage.
  14. DaveO.
    Jul 19, 2004
    2
    This movie was a screamingly dull, pointless, contrived, hackneyed disappointment. Truly a waste of time, except for the very hardcore, who will be particularly offended by the gross liberties taken by a overly-self-indulgent Raimi. I have no idea how Chabon could allow writing like this to go under his credit. A genuinely bad film. Worse than MIB2, ..which at least attempted to entertain This movie was a screamingly dull, pointless, contrived, hackneyed disappointment. Truly a waste of time, except for the very hardcore, who will be particularly offended by the gross liberties taken by a overly-self-indulgent Raimi. I have no idea how Chabon could allow writing like this to go under his credit. A genuinely bad film. Worse than MIB2, ..which at least attempted to entertain unlike this schlock. Expand
  15. AdamM.
    Jul 6, 2004
    2
    Like most sequels, this movie failed and took what could have been a truly good summer blockbuster and transformed it into a cliche ridden piece of garbage that made me laugh throughout. Action films should entertain without being cheesy and without redoing the same pathetic scenes that have been repeated for ages. I humorously recall laughing histerically as the crowd carries the now Like most sequels, this movie failed and took what could have been a truly good summer blockbuster and transformed it into a cliche ridden piece of garbage that made me laugh throughout. Action films should entertain without being cheesy and without redoing the same pathetic scenes that have been repeated for ages. I humorously recall laughing histerically as the crowd carries the now weakened Spiderman as if crowd surfing. This is one (of many) scenes that easily made this the worst film I have seen this summer. Expand
  16. RayRay
    Jul 9, 2004
    2
    I have to agree with Andrew M. (below), but don't just limit your criticism to the Metacritic users. Look at the praise from the professional Meta-Critics!! They loved the damned thing. I was bored out of my freakin' skull! I mean, both X-Men movies buried this sucker. I'd say Spider-Man 2 is about on the level with the "Hulk" movie. Don't be fooled people, this movie sucks.
  17. /\/\\/\/
    Jul 9, 2004
    2
    The 2 is for nice FX and Raimi's direction, the rest I could do without. The hero dilemma is waaaaaay overplayed in this film, it's the Groundhog Day of love stories. The longing looks and suggestive dialogue followed by the invetiable rejection of MJ by Peter ad nauseam. This tired passion play seriously detracts from any semblance of pacing in this film, and is not The 2 is for nice FX and Raimi's direction, the rest I could do without. The hero dilemma is waaaaaay overplayed in this film, it's the Groundhog Day of love stories. The longing looks and suggestive dialogue followed by the invetiable rejection of MJ by Peter ad nauseam. This tired passion play seriously detracts from any semblance of pacing in this film, and is not representative of what most fans want to see from their superhero flicks imo. I don't resent love stories, I just resent them not going anywhere over a 2+ hour period. Guess I'm in the minority here, but I found the first film better paced, and altogether more satisfying than this sequel. By the way, where the heck was the villian in this film? You hardly see him show up at all! Expand
  18. TerryD.
    Jul 3, 2004
    2
    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 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
  19. AnneB.
    Jul 7, 2004
    2
    Long, boring, more love story than action--you can tell comic book nerds had a huge hand in the production. Expected an action movie but got a cheesy soap opera. Gets 2 stars for the funny bit in the middle featuring a certain sunny classic pop song.
  20. TomD.
    Jul 6, 2004
    1
    WASTE of Money, and Time. More Soapopera then anything else
  21. MarkW.
    May 4, 2007
    1
    This was possibly the worst movie I have ever seen.
  22. Abdullah
    Jul 6, 2004
    1
    Extremely boring. Nowhere near the first one.
  23. AndrewM.
    Jul 8, 2004
    1
    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? 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
  24. AndrewM.
    Jul 8, 2004
    1
    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? 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!!! Collapse
  25. TheRealness
    Jul 4, 2006
    0
    [***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 [***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
  26. McgowanM.
    Jun 29, 2004
    0
    This movie is horrible. They should have ended it after the first one. Anyone who likes this movie is just plain stupid and is jumping on the bandwagon. daredevil rules!!!
  27. Webmasterpc77
    Aug 6, 2004
    0
    It Sucks badly.
  28. mike
    Feb 6, 2005
    0
    I liked the first Spiderman. But spiderman 2 is soooo bad!! the movie opens and they show him as a pizza delivery guy? come on! and there 1001 other examples of stupid things in this movie.
  29. Jb
    Apr 8, 2005
    0
    Terrible acting and plot. Pointless. A waste of time, money, and videotape.
  30. FrankR.
    Jul 4, 2006
    0
    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 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
  31. fabio
    Nov 16, 2004
    0
    Good action scenes...but everything else is truly disappointing that's not Spiderman.
  32. Dec 5, 2012
    0
    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 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 worstmy 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
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.