After watching the spiderman 2 film I have decided that the film haven't really done the comics any justice at all. The reason I put below.

First off all I would like to do a little insight into spiderman himself.

As we all know, Spiderman is a tragic character. What I like about Spiderman the comics is that they show how much spiderman effects Peter Parkers everyday life. He's not like Batman, he doesn't have a million dollars and high tech equipment, he is an average teenager with real problems. It's interesting to see how spiderman complicates things in his alter egos life and as such it means that he ends up missing school, dates with girls, etc. Also he is very human and makes human mistakes (something that Superman hardly ever does). He tries to be the hero, but sometimes he does end up hurting innocent people, without even trying to. So although his intentions are good, his actions mean that he puts others at risk while trying to defeat the villains.

However, for all his dark sides, he does have a tongue and cheek element. His sense of humour is amazing and the corny one liners makes reading it more enjoyable. I like it when comic relief is used in stories of this genre as it releases a lot of tention and makes the action a lot more enjoyable. Spiderman's sense of humour is very sharp and this makes him a more rounded character because although he takes his work seriously, he does enjoy a good laugh now and then.

This is why I felt the film didn't do the comics justice. It lost a lot of the humourous side of spiderman and concentrated on the negative aspect of his life, such as his love for mary jane, his loss of his uncle. Dont' get me wrong, the film did portray the tortured side of Peter Parker very well, but it was done to such an extent that after a while it became a cheesy teen agnst movie, plus it made Peter Parker look like a bit of cry baby. I know he was never meant to be a tough guy like Superman or Batman, but Toby Maguire played Peter Parker too weak and I'll be honest, I didn't feel sorry for him at all.

Had the movie injected the humour of the comic series and less of the drama it would have been a great script. As it happens, this script was depressing, dreary and (to be honest) extremly boring. Also I wished they had put more fight scenes in because I was expecting a lot more battles between Spiderman and Doc Ock but they didn't really fight until the last 30 mins of the film. I think the 90's cartoon did more justice to Spiderman than the films.

Of course, this is just my opinion. I'd like to know what others thought of the film. I want to see if my comments are valid, or I'm just being a moaning git!

By the way, I wasn't totally convinced with Doc Ock either, but that's a different story.

Got to agree with this review. I only just watched Spiderman 2 a few days ago. The CGI improvements over the first film are clear and merge with the real-life action so much better. It's fabulous to see Spidey fly around the city so real and believable, but we could have a ten minute short of that and be just as happy. A film has to be so much more, and considering (whether you like it or not) that a lot of Spiderman fans are very young, I think it is a bit ignorant of scriptwriters to play on the complicated character interaction on a social/emotional level. It's boring! It goes on and on and on. This is why the spiderman cartoon is better. Animating two people facing each other and having a chat is boring, whereas animating action is fun and exciting, so there is a lot more action in the cartoon.

I think I spotted a formula with Hollywood cartoon blockbusters when Godzilla came out. You need a big start, then a little rest, then a glimpse of the monster then a looooooonnnnggg boring bit with no special effects (cheaper to produce) then a good chunk of monster to finish with. Spiderman 2 fitted this mould, so did The Hulk.

The scriptwriters behind these movies should appreciate that we go to see them to see the monster, or in Spidey's case, the hero. We don't go because we're expecting oscar winning performances by supporting actors. We don't go for multi-layered scripts packed with surreal metaphor and hidden meaning. It's the monster all the way. You could cut out a good half hour from all of these films; Spiderman, Spiderman2, Godzilla and The Hulk.

It's a simple rule of thumb when it comes to superhero/monster movies: they're great when the monster/superhero is on screen, shite when they're not.

Yeah, I see your point. Mind you, Hollywood always tries to go for old "play on our emotions" feel when they go for Hollywood Blockbusters. Spielberg is famous for this, but at least his films (in my opinion) usually have a lot more substance and enough action to keep us interested. I was really disapointed because I heard there would be more action in this Spiderman film but instead it was pretty much the same as the first film. I hope they get it right for the next Spiderman film

Well, I don't know ...

I grew up reading comics; oh, well, might as well admit it: I read comics until I was old enough to be able to flog them for far more than I paid for them. I was there when Spiderman started and agree that part of his charm was the fact he was always broke and making a mess of his personal life.

But I stopped reading comics when I finally realised that a 5-95% quality-to-crap ratio was just not worth the money and time I put into them. This didn't just apply to the range of comics, but also within the history of each particular comic. For example, Daredevil was only ever okay until Frank Miller took over, then we had a dark, complex, ambiguous thriller on our hands. But then he went and it was back to the dross again.

At the risk of being sacrilegious, I actually prefer the Spiderman films to the comics (and the X-Men films too). I like the fact they've covered around 30 years of Spiderman's history in 2 films, cutting out so much make-weight along the way. And, sorry, but Spidey's 'humorous' quips would sound plain embarrassing if put on film. Also, there is thankfully no boring Gwen Stacey, and Aunt May is less wimpy than in the comics. Big budget films have more to lose than a monthly comic that has a captive audience. They have to appeal to more people, for a start - and yes, that sometimes means they take the lowest common denominator route. But it also sometimes means that they cut out the nerd-appealing crap and focus instead on more universal themes.

There was a throwaway line in the first X-Men film where (I think) Scott says to Wolverine, What did you expect, that we dress up in yellow and blue lycra? They are at the time wearing cool-looking black leather outfits and he's referring to what the X-Men in the comics actually wore, i.e. black leather is a big improvement on yellow and blue lycra.

That's a fair comment. I guess you would be right to an extent. I was just objecting to the over the top drama that was played in the films.

Mind you, saying that, I grew up watching the classic Batman 60's series with Adam West and ever since then I always liked it when Superheroes had a tongue in cheek feel to them.

Actually, I'll be honest, I thought the X-Men movies weren't that bad. All the characters were pretty good and the anti mutant hysteria was there as well. Wasn't too bad a film. I just wish Juggernaut or Apocalypse were in the films.

My rant about the boring bits aside, I am glad that Sam Raimi made the film. At least he's a self confessed fan. It shows, as it does with Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" films.

I loved the part in the first Spiderman film where we see his dream-outfit on paper and then we see the reality of what he can afford when he goes into the wrestling ring. I do wish they'd put in that fabulous joke in one of the early spiderman comics when he receives a cheque for a few thousand pounds, but can't cash it because it's made out to "Spiderman".

There is a definite feeling that the writers behind both films are big fans, but I can't get away from the fact that most blockbusters have this boring lull in the middle section.

I watched Men in Black II for the first time last night. It was a shock, but also refreshing to see a big budget movie that was incredibly short (I think it was about 1hour 20 minutes).

Colin M

Personally, I still feel the greatest super hero adaption is the first Tim Burton Batman film. That first scene where Batman glides down just off camera is amazing. Filmed in UK as well!