Spider-Man

User Score
8.5

Universal acclaim- based on 880 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 35 out of 880

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream 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

User Reviews

  1. Jan 6, 2016
    5
    WHAT I LIKED: The character of Peter Parker is relatively well established and the ending is excellent, the cast are generally great too. But truly this film's best feature is how well it stays true to the comics, it feels like a comic book film more than any other.
    WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE: This is one of the cheesiest films in the history of comic book films, and the green goblin feels odd
    WHAT I LIKED: The character of Peter Parker is relatively well established and the ending is excellent, the cast are generally great too. But truly this film's best feature is how well it stays true to the comics, it feels like a comic book film more than any other.
    WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE: This is one of the cheesiest films in the history of comic book films, and the green goblin feels odd and is hard to take seriously. It also lacks focus on character, or even humour, which it feels like it needs in places to lift the cheesy tone and make fun out of itself a little.
    VERDICT: Not a bad attampt at establishing Spider Man on the big screen, but this film does little else in terms of plot or excitement. It's very cliched and thus takes itself too seriously.
    Expand
  2. Nov 11, 2013
    6
    "Spider-Man" is a fun comic-book movie, but quite a lot of the acting is pretty cheesy and unreal too. It has good fight scenes between the hero and villain, that's probably all I can say about the film. The movie just doesn't feel satisfying when it's over.
  3. ShawnL.
    May 30, 2005
    5
    Predictable and corny at times, this movie has good special effects and the concept is original. However, that concept is more than 40 years old and this movie's plot looked like a direct translation from comic-to-script. This might please comic book or spiderman purists, but it doesn't make for a legendary movie. It's still entertaining and worth viewing, but don't Predictable and corny at times, this movie has good special effects and the concept is original. However, that concept is more than 40 years old and this movie's plot looked like a direct translation from comic-to-script. This might please comic book or spiderman purists, but it doesn't make for a legendary movie. It's still entertaining and worth viewing, but don't expect it to change your outlook on life. Expand
  4. Mar 14, 2013
    5
    Spider-Man is an over the top, goofy, misdirected movie. The way that this movie pans out is along a very kid friendly approach with an immature vibe throughout. The relationship between Peter and Mary Jane is not fleshed out at all, there are too many useless, undeveloped characters that do not push the plot forward and only falter specific scenes. The movie's use of CGI is beyondSpider-Man is an over the top, goofy, misdirected movie. The way that this movie pans out is along a very kid friendly approach with an immature vibe throughout. The relationship between Peter and Mary Jane is not fleshed out at all, there are too many useless, undeveloped characters that do not push the plot forward and only falter specific scenes. The movie's use of CGI is beyond terrible, making movies like Star Wars Episode I look better, even if it had come out years before. The Action scenes aren't believable due to the poor CGI quality and the way these movies tear the comic books to pieces by not following the original plot at all is really disappointing to me. You might get a kick of old nostalgia by watching these movies, but be ready to sit through goofball acting, painful CGI, annoying extras, haltered plot points, and a very poor interpretation of Spider-Man. If you want to really see a good Spider-Man movie, watch "The Amazing Spider Man" directed by Marc Webb. Expand
  5. Nov 12, 2013
    6
    Comic fans will rejoice.
    The highly anticipated Sam Rami hero flick Spider-man depicts practical faults of a special ,but still average young hero. With very dry acting and a very predictable plot; Spider-man simply learns to crawl.
  6. J.H.
    May 6, 2002
    5
    Bad special effects; cheesy lines; making good actors look not so good.
  7. IanR.
    Jul 4, 2002
    4
    The last 20 minutes redeem it to a level approaching average. The acting is uniformly poor (except for the always worthwhile Willem Dafoe), the script is awful (especially the exchanges between Peter and his "love" interest) and the special FX are mostly no more than passable but become embarrassingly unconvincing during moments such as the bit where he's jumping between rooftops. The last 20 minutes redeem it to a level approaching average. The acting is uniformly poor (except for the always worthwhile Willem Dafoe), the script is awful (especially the exchanges between Peter and his "love" interest) and the special FX are mostly no more than passable but become embarrassingly unconvincing during moments such as the bit where he's jumping between rooftops. Compare these with the more than 3 years older "Matrix" you'll find that there is no comparison. "I knew that the FX needed to look real or the audience just wouldn't buy it"(Sam Raimi). Wrong matey, it appears that they have bought it. As for the action, well let's just say that it reminds me of Power Rangers but with bigger explosions and expensive polystyrene balconies. The devices used to move on the story and convey the inner workings of Norman Osborn/Green Goblin are cringe-worthy and resplendent with cackling straight out of a fairground Ghost Train. I can't begin to say how hugely disappointed I was by this film and can only live in hope that the 2 planned sequels improve things or better still don't bother. Expand
  8. JackD.
    Nov 3, 2002
    6
    Fun, but the action scenes lack real energy.
  9. RafaelS.
    Dec 10, 2002
    5
    Spider man was okay but the green goblin really sucked and mary jane was to much of a drama queen.
  10. Kaninchen
    Oct 29, 2002
    5
    Geh. I'm sorry, but this was not worthy of the comic book. I've read the comic book and enjoyed it, and it was far superior to this movie. The acting was all so cheesy, I found myself wondering if they were TRYING to suck. If so, change my rating to 4; they suck at trying to suck.
  11. ChrisH.
    Mar 2, 2004
    6
    I do like this movie but the more i watch it, the less i enjoy it. This is because the flaws that i notice as a fan of the comics become more apparent. The largest of these flaws is the goblin costume which sucked, was dull and bland needed more color (ie some purple here and there)and the looke ridiculous in some scenes, particulary the scene in which the goblin tried to get Spiderman to I do like this movie but the more i watch it, the less i enjoy it. This is because the flaws that i notice as a fan of the comics become more apparent. The largest of these flaws is the goblin costume which sucked, was dull and bland needed more color (ie some purple here and there)and the looke ridiculous in some scenes, particulary the scene in which the goblin tried to get Spiderman to join him. Moving on from the costume there scene that really irritates me. The one in which Flash Thompson attempts to beat up young parker and while dodging Flash's punches Peter does a double/triple somersault that is so ridiculous in it gravity defying manner it should be impossible. Wouldn't someone have found this a little odd!!!!!. Putting this aside i do have some postive things to say about the movie, mainly its the cast who save this movie, the majority (ie not harry osborn) play the party well enough, although i think on some level most were miscast. Toby maguire was great as Peter Parker but not the best casting, no!!, in my opinion the best performance was given by JK. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson. So in conclusion i feel that although the film was (at least) knee deep in flaws it still had the heart of the comic/character to see it through. Expand
  12. KathryyyS.
    May 17, 2002
    4
    Rather boring. I'm not sure why it's making so much money - the American public needs to wake up and realize it's a bad movie. Boring, stupid, bad love story - and I was so looking forward to it! Great review on www.reconstructedbellybutton.com
  13. Rhys
    May 5, 2002
    4
    Most of the "wow" type comments are taken, so instead of harking on about how great a movie this is (and it is a great movie) I'll instead try to answer a few points made below..... 1# The Two Towers is different from the books. Yes. It is. And thank goodness for that. No movie will ever capture the full scope and history of the books without making one movie per chapter and being as Most of the "wow" type comments are taken, so instead of harking on about how great a movie this is (and it is a great movie) I'll instead try to answer a few points made below..... 1# The Two Towers is different from the books. Yes. It is. And thank goodness for that. No movie will ever capture the full scope and history of the books without making one movie per chapter and being as boring as hell. Don't get me wrong, the books are great, but what works for a book will not always work for a movie. PJ always said that of the three movies, TTT was going to depart the most from the books - but it's all for good reason. He is making a movie, and that means altering things to fit. I loved seeing Arwen as she glimpsed her own future, and what it would cost her... and for her to play a meaningful part in the movie, those who haven't read the books needed to see just what being with Aragorn means for her future. 2# The Two Towers is missing bits! To put any more in a movie already 3hours long would have been folly. Some of what was left out will be in the extended version, so I'm hanging out for that. But actually most of the "cut" matarial has been moved over to 'Return of the King'. The reason is that the third book is about one third as long as the other two, most of it's pages going to the large appendix at the back... I for one am glad for such forsight, least the Fallowship turn up in movie three with nothing more to do. And yes, "she" will be in the third movie. 3# It's not as good/deep as Fellowship Actually, yes it is... in fact it IS Fellowship. Remember that this is one huge movie and , being the start of the movie, Fellowship got a lot of the the character building. But in TTT we have well established characters and the movie is about what happens to them, not the characters themselves. Return of the King will, as will as offer the finial part of the story, give us a chance to look at how far our friends have come, and see how they have been changed. It's all rather silly that every section of a movie must contain the same elements all the way through, and TTT is just one part of a much larger 3 hour picture. My last word will be to say that the best way to watch The Two Towers is to watch it stright after watching the extended version of Fellowship of the Ring.... togeather like they were made, and meant to be. Expand
  14. MichaelF.
    May 5, 2002
    6
    The Good: Really fun, good SFX, nicely shot, good job by almost everyone, especially BRUCE CAMBELL!! The Bad: Willem Dafoe had too much fun, The screenplay, I was a tiny bit disappointed by the action scenes, not enough of this cool slo-mo thing that they did in the beginning. And The Ugly: The dialouge was almost unbearable, some really stupid scenes.
  15. ShaunT.
    Aug 7, 2003
    6
    Was I the only one that could point out about a million obvious mistakes with this fairly unfaithful comic book adaption? Don't get me wrong, this movie is fun and enjoyable to people who don't really pay much attention to the comic, but for those who are true fans of the comic, dissapointment runs rampant. The problem lies within the lucratively bent plot that swaps character Was I the only one that could point out about a million obvious mistakes with this fairly unfaithful comic book adaption? Don't get me wrong, this movie is fun and enjoyable to people who don't really pay much attention to the comic, but for those who are true fans of the comic, dissapointment runs rampant. The problem lies within the lucratively bent plot that swaps character identities and leaves you wondering in the final scene just how the editors didn't fix Marry Jane's dancing hand. Watch the movie again... you'll see what I mean! Obvious errors like this and cartoonish, almost fast-forward fight sequences don't help too much, either. Hopefully the next one will turn out a bit better than this, with an enemy worthy of a full length feature and, perhaps, a spin-off. Venom, anyone?! Expand
  16. AndrewM.
    May 10, 2004
    6
    I don't read comics but, like those who do, I was slightly disappointed with this film. I'm not going to list them but I just feel there was several weak points about the film, whether it be in-the-making or with the liberties taken with the story. The best feature of the film (by a country mile) was Kirsten Dunst. She was simply gorgeous! Actually I will go on record here as I don't read comics but, like those who do, I was slightly disappointed with this film. I'm not going to list them but I just feel there was several weak points about the film, whether it be in-the-making or with the liberties taken with the story. The best feature of the film (by a country mile) was Kirsten Dunst. She was simply gorgeous! Actually I will go on record here as saying that in watching this film I think I fell in love, but anyway, that's another story... Overall, I did enjoy this film, but I was disappoined that I didn't like it more. Expand
  17. Navid
    Dec 16, 2002
    4
    Fight scenes sucked, couldn't wait 'till movie finish so i could go home!
  18. BrandonA.
    May 17, 2002
    4
    Stupid, idiotic, maguire's is horrible as spider-man --- don't go see it. Great review on www.reconstructedbellybutton.com
  19. DonovanK.
    May 28, 2003
    6
    I've watched this movie 12 times already but only because i am such a huge spiderman fan not for the quality of the movie. it always left me starving for more action which never came. also they didnt show his powers to the fullest for example his strength, it would have been nice if it was written in that he had to lift a semi truck over his head for some reason or another. just anI've watched this movie 12 times already but only because i am such a huge spiderman fan not for the quality of the movie. it always left me starving for more action which never came. also they didnt show his powers to the fullest for example his strength, it would have been nice if it was written in that he had to lift a semi truck over his head for some reason or another. just an example but they at least could have shown us something of a demonstration. Expand
  20. GaryC.
    Dec 12, 2006
    6
    It has a good lesson to it and it was great entertainment but I'd say its a little draggy.
  21. AndrewN.
    Aug 25, 2007
    6
    Not so great for non spider-man fans. This was mostly just style over substance.
Metascore
73

Generally favorable reviews - based on 37 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 31 out of 37
  2. Negative: 0 out of 37
  1. There's a particular upside-down, half-masked kiss that instantly becomes one of movie history's more memorable smooches. It's the kiss to send any teenaged boy on a spinning high, as well as launching the new age of arachnophilia.
  2. Spider-Man may look like an action comic come to life, but its best feature is its romance comic heart. It's that rare cartoon movie in which the villain is less involving than the love story.
  3. Despite all the computer-generated effects and highflying superhero theatrics, this roughly $120 million movie is, with few exceptions, remarkable only in its small human touches.