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

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".

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

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

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.

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.

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

This movie is CLASSIC! one of the best!

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

I think Ebert was off on this one...

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

I wanna live in the early 2000s again

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!

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

RIP Roger Ebert :/

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

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.

Spider man 2002 was the best !!

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.

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

My Childhood...

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.

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.

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.

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".

Spider-Man is outstanding.

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.

I’m something of a movie critic myself.

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

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

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

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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

Spider-man is phenomenal movie.

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

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.

William Dafoe made the green goblin's voice somewhat similar to Hank Azaria's voice in the smurf's movie

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)

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.

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.

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

Roger gave this movie 2.5/4 Stars.

In my top five superhero(ine) films.

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

I do agree it looked too much like 1978 Superman.

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

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

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.

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

2:37 - 2:58 My Favorite.

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 😆

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

These spiderman movies looked better than the garfield ones.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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."

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Ebert is just astronomically wrong, I'm sorry. Look beyond the superhero action and effects with this movie. Look at the drama, the character development, character relationships, the music/score, the acting, the emotions, so much to appreciate about this movie and what it did. I'm happy he liked the second one (which was even better imo), but there's no denying the significance and awesomeness that this movie started and changed forever with the superhero genre. Sam Raimi and everyone involved with this movie deserve standing ovations and I loved it as a kid and will always love it as an adult.

@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

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.

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

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.

Movie critics are so picky. "Oh that flower didn't look like a real flower! Waaaaah! I want my money back! Waaaah!" And they get to see movies for free. Sheesh!

2:58 - 3:02 It did enough with that.

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

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?

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

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...

@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.

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

there are lots of film reviews I don't agree with from Ebert, but he's right on this one. he forgot to mention that almost every character n this movie is insufferable...

@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.

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

Spider-Man needed to talk more! he needed to be jokey; my ONLY complaint about this film is that Tobey didn't free himself as Spider-Man

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.

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

I'm no comic book reader, and I prefer Superman and Batman to Spidey, but in terms of the films alone: Spider-Man was like a candy bar: fun, sweet, and a bit satisfying, just don't expect too much substance or real value (outside of that decision scene with Mary Jane and the trolley car, I disagreee with Ebert, that WAS a great scene.) Spider-Man 2 was like the main course at a 5-star restaurant, GREATLY statisfying, behind Superman II and The Dark Knight. Spider-Man 3 was just JUNK. :)

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.

Nothing against Siskel, but I like these two also.

Another one you got wrong Roger im afraid up there in Heaven R.I.P the Tobey Maguire Spiderman was awesome as was the second shame about the third and the two Andrew Garfield disasters and i think the Tom Holland version is the best with the second and third films the first was just ok in my opinion mainly a lot to do with Michael Keaton who was amazing in it but the third i love because it brings all three of the Spidey's together so you have a reference point about how different their versions were even Garfield was great in it and also brought back Willem Dafoe as Green Goblin and Alfred Molina as Doc Octopus two of the best villains from the Maguire movies and both Dafoe and Molina were awesome in it too 👍🏻

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

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

@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.