Ebert & Roeper Review Spider-man (2002)

[@AllenMQuinn]

Miss this show so much. RIP Mr. Ebert. You've left a huge gap that nobody can fill.

[@m.shyamganeesh7421]

👍

[@terciosonic]

👍

[@CJW0056]

Obesity is no laughing matter

[@jameswilliams-of3mv]

..ebert was the best,,, rip

[@gracemartin3855]

@Allen M. Quinn, I wonder If Siskel & Ebert was still Alive, I wonder what They would Thought About Spider-Man 2, Spider-Man 3, Spider-Man Homecoming, Spider-Man Far From Home, Spider-Man Into The Spider-verse, Cinderella (2015), Maleficent (2019), Beauty And The Beast (2017), Pete's Dragon (2016), The Jungle Book (2016), Independence Day Resurgence, It (2017), It Chapter 2 (2019), Child's Play (2019), Aladdin (2019), Bumblebee (2019), Ferdinand, Coco, Zootopia, Toy Story 4, The Secret Life Of Pets 2, The Lego Movie 2 The Second Part, etc. etc.

[@philsays9036]

Love how things were in 2002 when we didn't know how big superhero films would come.

[@matchesmalone2625]

I remember seeing the trailer for the sequel in theaters and I lost my shit because I had no idea we’d get a second one

[@michaelkrolewski7406]

Now, there's way too many of them. Lol 😆

[@fortynights1513]

Back when they were another genre of film, but not seemingly the only thing that was heavily promoted or banked on like the 2010’s.

[@MattrickBT]

I rewatched Spider-man last year. I was astounded by how quaint this film was. It was this nice little simple superhero film that ends with a fistfight in a building somewhere....no sky lasers, no cities being destroyed, no alien army, no alternate dimensions, no overstuffed cast of characters. It's just a movie. And in this day and age, that's refreshing. It's sad that if a film like Spider-man were made now, it would be considered boring and lame.

[@brianrose8772]

I usually agree with Ebert, but on this one, I have to agree with Roeper. I liked it. 👍

[@mariogamefreak1]

Brian Rose he didn’t like it because of the cgi

[@SmackDab]

He changed his tune for spider-man 2

[@thefan974]

@mariogamefreak1 I don't understand how though. The fx were Oscar nominated at the time and what he's saying about spider being weightless just seems bogus since the swinging scenes even today are fun as heck to watch.

[@mrbee4life182]

​@@thefan974 The effects still hold up today for me and actually thought they were even better in the second one 👍🏻

[@markula_4040]

Seriously imagine walking out of the movie theater in 2002 after seeing Spider-man and saying to someone: "No I don't recommend going to see this movie".

[@SamJohnsonAZ]

Some things you appreciate more on a second viewing. I think his opinion would have changed

[@birdoffire983]

I did.

[@jp3813]

@@SamJohnsonAZ Siskel once pitched an idea of an episode where they fess up about getting a review wrong. It didn't happen b/c Ebert said that he has never been wrong about a movie.

[@nossenkanter]

Imagine being a movie critic. Yeah. That's kind of what they're supposed to do? By your logic everyone should just have the same opinion.

[@joeblough261]

@@jp3813 That's odd. He changed his mind on a few movies and admitted it in his book. One that comes to mind is Last House on the Left.

[@gor9027]

Not a perfect movie, but it was perfect for its time, and I'm glad it was made. Batman and Robin and Superman IV destroyed the superhero movie genre and left it for dead. Without this movie, and the success it brought, the superhero genre doesn't get reborn, and we don't get all the great superhero movies that are available today. And to this day, Raimi's series is still the best Spider-Man film series around.

[@billybarnett9518]

Two meh movies and one really good one, not the best

[@serenaistheb.o.a.t]

Don't forget X-Men and Blade.

[@kylekondit9709]

@@billybarnett9518 Yeah and Tom Holland's spider man is 2 meh movies so far. And noone even wants to talk about andrew garfield.... this is the best super hero trilogy of all time P.S. spiderman 1 is better than meh and so is 3 honestly. The studio forceed sam rami to include venom which affected things tone wise but its still such good filmmaking on display and I really love the corny dialog

[@billybarnett9518]

@@kylekondit9709 3 is a mess.

[@nathanslay6342]

I love this movie. I think it’s great

[@tthomaselli2]

"He moves too fast.".; He's fuckin' Spider-Man!?

[@TheMasterQuests]

Exactly he supposed to do that

[@owenmenning3878]

He was talking about the weight of his movement, TASM2 nailed it

[@IYamJayJay]

@@owenmenning3878 at the cost of literally everything else

[@aranighosh3945]

@@owenmenning3878 Tasm 2 is garbage

[@aerpx]

and critiquing the action is lame asf. the effects are super cool and the action is so stylistic. feel like it would’ve aged positively on him, given how much better it is than all of the mcu super hero flicks.

[@LukeLovesRose]

I cant believe Ebert cares so much about the effects. The human element in this movie was so touching and moving. You care about these characters

[@agathajadwiszczok3503]

No you don't. Especially in the 3rd one. You don't care at all.

[@LukeLovesRose]

@agathajadwiszczok3503 I'm not talking about the 3rd movie. But yes, it's easy to care about these characters in the first and second Spiderman movies. I'm sorry that you cant care about them

[@Xayjohns]

Tobey McGuire actually caught all that stuff on the lunch tray himself.

[@RealFanOfSteel]

@@missioncodez 147 actually.

[@AxeKick80]

But he missed the part where that’s his problem.

[@douglasgonzalez5412]

@@AxeKick80 good one

[@Kikirocy]

I’d give the film a 3.5/4 stars. I thought the pacing was incredible and the characters were fleshed out very well. It had some minor problems like the visuals and some of the dialogue, but overall it did pretty great. Great screenplay, great acting, great cast, and great direction. I love the green Goblin as the villain.

[@Nepthu]

This movie is CLASSIC! one of the best!

[@mackymusic673]

The animation is a little dated, but it honestly still holds up nearly 20 years later! Just finished watching it, and I freakin' love the characters in this movie!

[@mrbee4life182]

Yeah and it kinda puts the more recent superhero films to shame not all tho before i get complaints

[@loope9421]

I was 7 years old when my older brother took me to my first movie theater experience and I’m glad it was Spider-Man 1.

[@stefanmovieflixtomasi]

That’s awesome

[@brianrose8772]

I think Ebert was off on this one...

[@HugoSoup57]

Brian Rose This was a good movie, so I definitely agree with you that Ebert was off on this one. But he was wrong about a lot of other movies as well. Gladiator, A Clockwork Orange, Blue Velvet, The Usual Suspects, Die Hard and countless other classic movies he gave negative ratings. When he gave Home Alone and Jumanji negative scores, I was appalled, I’m sorry but I couldn’t agree with him, those movies were my childhood.

[@brianrose8772]

Hugo Soup He also didn’t like Dumb & Dumber, Batman (1989), Batman Returns, Mrs. Doubtfire, Back To The Future 3, and Jim Carrey’s How The Grinch Stole Christmas.

[@jedijones]

@@brianrose8772 Neither did I.

[@thefan974]

@Brian Rose He even gave daredevil a thumbs up.

[@benjaminguzman8645]

​@@brianrose8772Jim Carrey's Grinch movie sucks dude, also Batman Returns was terrible.

[@CJODell12]

To be exact, Roger gave the film two-and-a-half stars out of four.

[@brianrose8772]

C.J. O'Dell Yes

[@TheMasterQuests]

How dare he

[@ssssssstssssssss]

That sounds about right to me. But shouldn't 2.5 stars be a thumbs up?

[@CJODell12]

@@ssssssstssssssss 2.5 out of 4 is either a marginal thumbs up or a marginal thumbs down.

[@cracklasco]

I wanna live in the early 2000s again

[@MichaelGreen57320]

What was it like?

[@mutsortima174]

If Ebert was still alive today, he'd have to put _Spider-Man Homecoming_ on his "most hated" list.

[@unseenphantomamvsytp2186]

You don't know that. His opinions were known to surprise people.

[@mangogoat4691]

Mutsor Tima not likely

[@brianrose8772]

Mutsor Tima What makes you so sure?

[@1waytickettopluto]

Judging by his opinion of 2002 Spider-Man, I think he would have loved the fact that Peter Parker was not a good Spider-Man for 90% of Homecoming.

[@meghnasaha4349]

Going by this review I think he would've enjoyed Peter's arc. Although I don't know if he would've enjoyed the countless 3 movies per year thing that Marvel Studios is doing these days. Superhero exhaustion is a real thing specially in elders

[@AbbasKhan9364]

Totally loved the old trilogy, My favorite superhero movies..

[@Spider-Complexion]

Rewatched this movie recently (over 20 years old WTF) and it has a lot of heart. The strongest moment of the film for me is when Peter comes across his uncle, Peter looks to avenge him, and chases the perp in the car. That first swinging segment is just really great. I could feel the emotion behind Peter/Tobey looking to avenge his uncle and use his powers for good in stopping a criminal and something that’s also personal to him. You see him start to become Spider-Man.

[@Kikirocy]

I love this movie. I love the story. I love the cast. I agree that the film had problems but it had a good amount of them, like the special effects and some of the writing. This movie redefined the superhero genre after the mess that was Batman & Robin. I still love the cheesiness and even the special effects.

[@joeblough261]

I loved the movie, but Ebert makes a great point where he said he didn't feel the weight of flesh and blood in the SFX.

[@parkerpshebnisky1051]

When I had this movie on DVD I used to watch it every week!

[@-Anonymous-.]

I watched it everyday until Spider-Man 2 came out lol

[@TheBoltSpark]

I agree with Richard Roeper's review of this film.

[@brianrose8772]

Naman Bapna Me too

[@gyrosplater]

Ebert's criticism of the effects lacking any weight sounds very familiar to a very common criticism of the modern MCU. I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[@quarantinebored1427]

The complaints about the first film were made up for in spider man 2

[@ceciliaperez5172]

Spider man 2002 was the best !!

[@asianfireflie]

The 2014 one

[@MrAkashvj96]

The 2nd one was much much better. This one had awful dialogue.

[@awesome420ication]

+Nameless Paladin I wouldn't say awful but it was cheesy. Spider-man 2, i think, showed great improvement in that area.

[@sebastianfitzptraick7395]

+Nameless Paladin I think that was intentional,due to Raimi trying his best to recreate the early comics.

[@mettashade]

Oh man, I can't believe Ebert gave this a thumbs down. I love the campiness and lighthearted tone of this movie.

[@frankperez694]

RIP Roger Ebert :/

[@tylermane77]

Moves to fast? He's fucking SPIDER-MAN!

[@MaTtRoSiTy]

Lets face it, this was not a cinematic masterpiece but I have to say I really enjoyed this movie. McGuire played the perfect role as did Dunst. I have actually seen this at least 3 times now so for me personally, that is a compliment in itself.

[@ThePoreproductions]

what about (Andrew) Garfield and (Emma) Stone?

[@MaTtRoSiTy]

ThePoreproductions I don't know who they are to be honest

[@ThePoreproductions]

MaTtRoSiTy have you seen THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN (2012) and THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN 2 (2014)?

[@MaTtRoSiTy]

ThePoreproductions I started the first one but I didn't like it at all. Its just the same story with less likable actors as far as I remember

[@Chosenviper]

Andrew did ok in the roll but hey I just like the presence that Tobey has. He just came off as the ideal Peter Parker despite some development issues, but I digress.

[@davidporter671]

I’m something of a movie critic myself.

[@meghnasaha4349]

Wow we all talk about how some of the CGI hasn't aged well at all in this movie, but I never felt that as a kid because every movie had it like this then. But it's surprising Ebert caught it back then

[@thefan974]

But he didn't he's complaining about cgi when the film in the fight scenes is in camera. What's more is him saying spidey seems weightless during the swinging scenes doesn't make any sense since the cameras following him the whole time and seeing his movements no one would say he seems weightless

[@ECL28E]

I'm not gonna lie. This movie has some problems. The fight scenes look like something from a Power Rangers episode, especially up close, the CG is pretty dated, the Green Goblin is too hokey and corny, the writing isn't really up to snuff, especially in the romantic scenes "Aunt May, is that an angel?" or "it's you who's out, Gobby. Out of your mind".

[@ahatt96]

I see you are a nostalgia critic fanboy.

[@ECL28E]

Wait, he's reviewed the Spiderman movies?

[@ahatt96]

ECL28E He did an old vs new favoring the New Spiderman movies which if you ask me are awful. They are the "dark and gritty Spiderman" you know the type that Spiderman 3 made fun of. Also the silliness of the Green Goblin is intentional.

[@ECL28E]

Ahh. Well, I, myself prefer the new ones, but that's just me

[@MontyQueues]

it's supposed to be a PG movie ish i rather not have the movie take itself too seriously rofl

[@hoolio35]

spiderman moves to fast mr. ebert??? he is fucking spiderman!!!

[@Gorilla_warfare]

In hindsight, even with the modern problem of Sony possessing the rights to Spider-Man and the toing and froing surrounding which movies he can be used in, I think overall it has been a positive thing that this movie was made. It helped to kick off the MCU (yes, I know that its not a part of it), as it was made at a time where marvel hadn’t managed to create anything compelling (the punisher, later daredevil), but created a buzz around a marvel character, and demonstrated that finally technology could allow Spider-Man could move in a live action fashion that was believable (albeit a bit too fluid). I saw this movie with my brother and we both left the cinema exhilarated.

[@yaywhewclips242]

SM II was much better with awesome Alfred Molina as Doc OC.

[@aptonymic3014]

notgrillo collector/ gamer it's Doc Ock

[@AnthonyHeadway]

No the first was the best willem dafoe gave it his all in it

[@pkattk]

I think Roger's big problem is how the CG Spider-man looked more like a higher polygon X-box character than a guy in a suit. And he's right, in a way.

[@thefan974]

Not particularly. The blade dodging scene especially looks like a guy in a suit

[@CelestialWoodway]

The frustrating thing is with all of the Spider-Man reboots Spider-Man is back in high school again and the character has not moved forward or grown as much on screen as he should have by now.

[@leew1598]

I feel really conflicted about this one. I love the energy, the fun, the colour, the fantastical element to it, I liked Peter's relationship with his Aunt, liked the way New York is shown, loved all the comedy with the Daily Bugle, I thought William Defoe was a classy actor, I really liked the wrestling scene in particular. It has some problems though yeah, the spider-man mask completely hides Peter's face so we can't see his emotions or any acting whenever he's spider-man. Thought MJ was a weak character, just a plot device to create conflict between Harry, Norman and Peter. The motivation of the Green Goblin is also vague, what does he actually want? Found Peter a little too passive and meek in this one, he gets more interesting in Spider-man 2. The CGI was good back in 2002 but it looks really dated now in some scenes now. I saw it when I was about 12 though in the cinema with my friends and it was the first superhero film which really grabbed my attention ( I didn't like the x-men films).

[@mangotheif]

Nerd!

[@thefan974]

The times square scene is the only scene where I could understand the cgi sticking out a little otherwise its not that bad in the rest of the film

[@bossfan49]

These spiderman movies looked better than the garfield ones.

[@nmcvicker03]

I loved this movie, it hasn't aged well but It was one of the funnest times I've had in the theater. Sure it had some flaws but it had heart and it was exciting. The new one was just mopey and emo. It was ok, but comparing when they both came out, this one blew the new one away in my opinion.

[@J4sse]

Back when movies were great.

[@gochem3013]

My Childhood...

[@gochem3013]

I will put this in "The Reason Why 2002 Kick's Ass".

[@AwsumessPrime14]

Haven't you seen Spiderman 2? It's important that Peter Parker is shown more because his role as Spiderman and the burden he bears to save others from harm affects Peter's daily life, his relationships and his psychology.

[@jonnemesis11]

You think is possible that TASM turns out to be worse?

[@JC42023]

A shame Ebert wasn't around to see Into the Spider-Verse. Roeper loved it and I can imagine Roger would've too (at least preferred it to this one, which is still an alright film)

[@brianrose8772]

J 13 or Spider-Man: Homecoming

[@martinishot]

The last two Star Trek films as an example, show us Ebert was right. They went back to stop action filming of models and used CGI just to enhance.The results have been more convincing than depending on CGI alone.

[@moviebuffreviews]

Pretty reasonable, but I just love Spider-Man, so here are my ratings. Spider-Man: 9/10 Spider-Man 2: 10/10 Spider-Man 3: 7.5/10

[@stefanmovieflixtomasi]

Overall=26.5/30

[@PicardSisko7]

Exactly. For 2002 this was really good. I've seen worse CGI in the Matrix sequels.

[@mackymusic673]

Actually that wasn't CGI, correct me if I am wrong but Tobey Maguire is actually a human Spider and swings from building to building and sticks to walls. He's still seen today doing his spider activities across the world. Yea...

[@darkmindedsith]

He DID like it actually. He reviewed it and gave it three and a half stars.

[@concernparent101]

i can't believe spiderman got a thumb down. :(

[@brianrose8772]

concernparent101 Me neither.

[@wasteland70]

I agree with Ebert in the sense that CGI doesn't really work all that often.

[@martinnguyen2458]

I love Sam Raimi's Spider-man movies, except Spider-man 3. They were classics and reminded me of myself because I am still a struggling man.

[@stefanmovieflixtomasi]

Martin Nguyen Spider-Man 1 and 2 were indeed the best. Spider-Man 3 was a terrible sequel

[@user-dr2yz8um3d]

Well it's official.... the original Spider-Man is now 20 years old!!! I'm very very thankful I found the first trailer for it on resident evil dvd and my dad took my sister Cara and I to see it opening weekend Then we saw it again after Made $114 million domestically and 825 million worldwide I'm really blessed that Sam Raimi, Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, Willem Dafoe, and James Franco brought these characters to life with a great story, acting, heart, fun, special effects, music, and bringing an impossible comic book to the screen Amazing supporting cast too with JK Simmons, Rosemary Harris, and the late Cliff Robertson This is the movie that set the bar for all comic book filmmaking and that made me into a die hard movie buff collecting merchandise 2 sequels, a reboot, a sequel to that, and the MCU versions followed Very happy Nostalgia Critic loved it; has its silly moments but balances everything out with its campy vibe, the angles and imagery, a well set up origin story and good pacing Brought some much needed hope and optimism after a post 9/11 cultural landscape with permeating themes of heroism as a lonely form of sacrifice This includes the heroes and the villains, they all have good motivations and arcs Proved that the genre didn't need to be overly-dark or straight up silly and thankfully brought comic book movies back again paving the way for the Marvel Cinematic Universe and so forth

[@Hectorferjr2]

Spider-Man is outstanding.

[@DANIELDUDE1000]

I agree with you. I felt the Amazing Spiderman film was rushed and there are moments in that film that felt forced with certain plot points that don't really go anywhere.

[@michaelkrolewski7406]

I love what one critic said about Macy Grey, that this is what happens when an an artist in retrospect becomes a one hit wonder and is featured in a hit movie way too soon. It makes you wonder what she's more famous for her appearance in the movie, or her one song that was a hit. Lol 😆

[@Malcham7]

I was 9 when I saw this in theaters, and I noticed how bad the CGI was.

[@oldaccount8199]

Malcham7 right I used to be like wow is that a cartoon?

[@JC42023]

Probably, but CGI was still relatively new when this came out. Is it great? No but there was much, MUCH, worse before and after

[@-Anonymous-.]

This comment is corny lol. You didn’t notice anything. If that’s the case how did you play PS2/Xbox/GameCube games?

[@Hectorferjr2]

I have been writing movie reviews ever since I first watched Spider-Man at the age of 7.

[@brianrose8772]

Hectorferjr2 I first saw it when I was 8

[@brianrose8772]

Roger gave this movie 2.5/4 Stars.

[@Ilovemovies917]

I do agree it looked too much like 1978 Superman.

[@stefanmovieflixtomasi]

Mike D it made Superman (1978) feel like a popular teen comedy

[@BigAlvideos101]

They wanted a darker Spider-Man? Just wait until they see "The Amazing Spider-Man". That should be right up their alley.

[@RichardKleiner]

Spider Man 3's fatal flaw was that they added Venom when there was no room for the character. Perhaps they should have left him at the end as a cliffhanger, but that to me was the worst thing.

[@CaptainRaccoonWhitly]

@SLPIFan In his defense, Batman had aspects to it that were ridiculous, such as the Prince music. Also, Burton movies are often very polarizing, so I'm not really surprised.

[@seantheman1886]

Spider-man is phenomenal movie.

[@ukhistorian]

This is coming from the same guy that liked Home Alone 3.

[@velocityrapture7047]

Can someone tell me what Roger Ebert meant by this? "Consider the scene where Spider-Man is given a cruel choice between saving Mary Jane or a cable car full of school kids. He tries to save both, so that everyone dangles from webbing that seems about to pull loose. The visuals here could have given an impression of the enormous weights and tensions involved, but instead the scene seems more like a bloodless storyboard of the idea." Was he saying there wasn't enough consequence?

[@Korared]

I actually agree with Ebert a bit. It wasn't that he moved too fast per say, but rather that he didn't feel like his body had any actual weight to it. This is simply an issue with the special effects though. The second film did a good job fixing that issue and I would generally provide it a decent recommendation.

[@asianfireflie]

I hate negative words for this movie

[@leew1598]

Good little tip from these reviews is to talk in particulars not just in generals, pick a particular scene to make your point and discuss that little scene.

[@jugulator95]

he did like it he gave it a 3.5 out of 4 he said it is the 2nd best Spiderman film right behind Spiderman 2

[@danielgrimes8312]

Wtf is this deal with the special effects? I think they look fantastic, a very few times lacks but mostly it looks pretty good

[@PicardSisko7]

The memories! I remember how exciting this was 10 years ago!!!

[@nellieworkman3935]

My favorite part about this is that they are debating over a pretty minor point for a movie that neither of them felt that strongly about.

[@vegard930]

this was my favourite film growing up, is was better then and I kind of agree with what they're saying, but this is a good movie.

[@IISCOOL67]

While I can't say I like this film as much as some others do, it was pretty good for it's time. Back then, the first two Spidey films were probably the best superhero films of all time. But now we have films like 'The Avengers' and Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy and such, so Raimi's films, while still fun films, pale in comparison to a lot of comic films made after them.

[@TheSNK1986]

Roger Ebert gave the Amazing Spider-man 3.5/4.

[@brianrose8772]

TheSNK1986 I know. And that one wasn’t good at all. TASM 2 was so much better.

[@andreas4010]

not that much, the 2012 version relied on cgi for what was to expensive or impossible to do with actors. in the newer version, they used cranes and wires or simply train the actors for doing stunts, instead of cgi. also the acting is a lot better in the newer version

[@PicardSisko7]

These guys are good for other types of films, not ones based on comic books, video games, etc.

[@jacobchanza6163]

I completely agree with Ebert on this one,It's just that if you compare the effects from the other movies they look far superior.

[@MachineFuckingHate]

In what movie from the early 2000 were there a better CGI human models in action? The human CGI still looks fake to this day. So no, your complaint is bullshit.

[@joseaguilera6355]

Jacob Chanza spider man 2 had better effects i thought

[@thefan974]

@@joseaguilera6355 yh but spider man 1 mainly used cgi in the swinging scenes and it holds up perfectly therw

[@500ncb]

@michaelthemovieman oops. i made a mistake. i thought he gave 3.

[@JimAllder11]

They had a right to their opinions, but they were wrong. It was, and is, a much better movie than they are giving it credit for.

[@kirbykok4544]

It is a great movie! Tobey Maguire is great in this movie! I like all the Spiderman movies!

[@brianrose8772]

Kirby Kok I think All Spider-Man Movies are great except TASM 1.

[@CarseyJones]

The fanboy in me loved it but the film maker in me was throwing up.

[@IYamJayJay]

Really? Its some of the best filmmaking in the entire genre

[@GreenMorningDragonProductions]

In my top five superhero(ine) films.

[@brandonspain12345]

Happy 20th Anniversary Spider-Man!!!!!!

[@robotpanda77]

The jumping isn't realistic? Here is eberts review in a nutshell. "How he all spider powers? That don't make no sense, that is impossible."

[@NoNonsenseSpider]

Ebert done got oofed like Iron Man in Avengers: Endgame.

[@BradiKal61]

Roger was a bit of a fogey on this one. Raimi pretty much defined how superhero movies would look especially from Spiderman , as Tom Holland still uses some 2002 moves in the more recent films

[@HermaphroGynandro]

@kingofcrime87 Actually, it was Gene Siskel who nitpicked a lot. In fact, he actually thought Pee-Wee's Big Adventure was one of the worst films of 1985.

[@navylaks2]

I sorta agree with both of them, im a hugh spiderman fan and have been for a long time and was realy exited when this film finaly came out. But had like mixed feelings when i saw it on the the one hand i thought that thoose highschool scenes were great and funny, but on the other hand Rami made him a little to boring, and the special effects when he swings through the city never impresed me and they havent improved them over the 3 films

[@LordMalice6d9]

@abcldeefcgh Well the 2nd Spiderman placed more of an emphasis on Peter's life and his struggles as spiderman and developed the characters much more. Which is one of the reasons why many consider the 2nd to be better than the first.

[@dan8889]

I completely disagree with Ebert on this one, the original Spider-man was a great film and did not need to explore his new powers when it was originally presented. The action scenes were great, the intro story was amazing too.

[@RichardKleiner]

@BondFreek plus that. I try to forget about that scene with Emo Peter dancing :O

[@UniteForgetLeftRight]

@TETTSUUO i think its one of the best comic book movies ever made, ive never seen a movie adhere so well to its comic book roots and at the same time be an excellent movie in its own right

[@fosibodu]

Ebert was completely wrong, are you kidding me, the visual effects were spectacular. Look especially at the scene with spidy in the firey building when hes spinnig around in slow motion dodging goblins, 'batarangs', if they didnt tell you, you would be convinced that was a real person in d suit, but the whole scene is completely digital. Everything I believe. Oh also nominated for best visual effects Oscar. Enough Said!

[@SUPERTIMEGOD]

it's not a flaw, what ebert doesn't know is spider-man has superhuman strength, speed, agilty, balance, bodily coordination, and Perfect Equilibrium, he is toughened and durable enough to fall from great heights with no injury, as seen in spider-man 2, you combine these and it makes since why he can move and land with such lightness and ease.

[@astro666zombie69420]

Ebert has many valid points. And many people online prefer the 03 hulk, including me.

[@carealoo744]

Like what?