I thoroughly found this movie to be genuinely warm and appealing. It has real story and it is not too negative. Save for when Parker undisguised doesn't help the guy getting mugged. How about just calling for the police, Peter? I found the villain to have just enough scren time, anymore would have been sickening. A good movie through and through with the above exception. I enjoyed the bloopers on the DVD too. Watch them after you see the completed work though.

Most sequels are lousy, but this one was pretty good.
It wasn't quite as good as the first, but still very good!

I don't know if I've ever seen a sequel that was actually good. The low-key opening third of the film in which Parker's character and situation is explored and revealed is quite engaging. Maguire has a soft, laid back approach that is quite appealing. This feels like a real film with real characters. The surrounding characters are a little over-blown, but seen as a film about a real person living in a comic-book fantasy, they work well, and there is a healthy, knowing tongue-in-cheek intelligence about the film that pulls me in. But at some point in the middle when the action film section really gets going I realized that I had become bored. The film had lost the art-house feel of the opening, had become yet another Hollywood No Brainer with big action sequences, no character development, no surprises, just the usual crash scenes. It was hard to stay focused, and I wondered why and where exactly the awareness of the intelligent viewer had been dropped. Certainly Molina plays the villain with wink-wink, thigh slapping gusto, and there is enough humour and drama in the ending to make most readers forget the tedium of the the middle third. But considered as a whole, the film failed for me.

They say never to mess with a winning formula. Spider-Man made a HUGE ammount of money in theaters, and set quite a few records. People really loved this movie, (myself included.) It had all the action it needed, characters were well-developed, and it was just like a comic book. It was even very funny and enjoyable.

Why, then, did they mess this up with Spider-Man 2? All the fun of the first movie is gone, instead replaced by endless sappy conversations. Other reviewers have mentioned all the crying that goes on in this movie. I agree, there was way too much of it. In almost every scene, characters are always in tears. This was not what I expected from a sequel to one of the best ACTION movies of 2002! This one tries way too hard to be dramatic, and it was simply boring.

The plot was not fun, either. Essentially, Spider-Man distances himself from all his friends, and they're all upset about that. There you go. Oh yeah, and there's a scientist who installed tentacles onto himself and is now on a violent rampage.

Compared to the plot of the first movie, this one is simply laughable. There is also almost no action scenes in this movie. Maybe 2 or 3 big action sequences, but the rest of the movie is simply one "crying scene" after another.

The action scenes, by the way, aren't really as much fun as in the first movie. Sure, they are bigger and more explosive, but they are too violent to be fun. Now, violence is not a problem for me in most cases. I really like many movies and video games that people considder violent. But it seemed so pointless and out of place in Spider-Man 2 that it drained all the fun out of the action scenes. Endless close-ups of people SCREAMING at the camera before being killed is not only very violent, but it's also cheesy. (What is this, a B-movie?)

A big scene showcased on the trailers and commercials "Let's see who is behind the mask!" Is not nearly as cool as it seems. They wanted you to expect this to be a huge deal, and this whole scene ended up falling flat.

Overall, Spider-Man 2 was simply a dull, tear-filled sequel to one of the coolest movies of 2002. Obviously, you should see this if you were a fan of the original simply to see where they're going with the story, but overall....this movie just doesn't even come close to what the first movie offered.

Spider-Man 2 is alot better than the overrated 2002 'Spider-Man'. I say that because the film itself has a generous story that's very realistic. Tobey Maguire as usual was good as Peter Parker/Spider-Man (despite his 5'7 frame)>>>>>no pun intended. Throughout the film Peter Parker is struggling w/ his own personal problems and appears to be a recluse to MJ, Aunt May & Harry Osbourne.He's so involved w/ being Spider-Man he ignores the little things in life. By the way, he's still in love in MJ........which leads to the Superman 2 plot (spoiler). For the villain of the film, we have Dr. Octopus (Alfred Molina). He's pretty good in the role, though his screen time is limited. Viewers get a dose of good action scenes involving Spider-Man vs Dr Ock (though not alot of scenes)........Kirsten Dunst was so-so as MJ (not my 1st casting choice in the role)......she basically whines off & on about Peter not being true to his feelings about her ( Maguire/Dunst have bad chemistry, not as bad as Reeves/Moss in Matrix). James Franco improved(acting-wise) in the film. Franco in Spider-Man 1 was too dull, but in Spider-Man 2 we can see the darkness that lies within him, but I'll admit, the scenes with Peter/Harry were highly amusing and badly scripted at the same time. Oh, and for all you Willem Dafoe fans, he's in Spider-man 2 as well (in a unexplained ending). Yeah................I think Raimi should've nixed the whole Norman Osborn taunting Harry scenario if he's not going to be the villain in Spider-man 3...............All & all I loved the film alot, a few things could be changed (like most films)>>>>>>>I hope my review helps