AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

adonis98-743-186503 At the New York State University, one of Peter Parker's tutors has accidentally given three students all the materials they need to create an atomic bomb. While Peter Parker tries to find out what's happened, the police suspect him of the crime, and Peter has to deal with an attractive journalist determined to get an interview with Spider- Man. Then dastardly millionaire Mr. White shows up, and will stop at nothing to get his hands on the atomic bomb. Spider-Man must defeat this scheming villain and stop him blowing up the World Trade Centrer. Nicholas Hammon returns as Peter Parker A.k.a Spider-man and this time even better, Spider-Man Strikes Back (1978) is for me what the first Superman movie was which is good and serious and it knows when it wants to make you laugh especially during that motorcycle chase sequence or even Spider-man beating some guys up with some western music in the background, the acting is very good and some of the effects a little bit better although the spider-web still looks like a bad rope and the villains are still kinda weak but then again it's a 70's made for TV film and for that they did a pretty cool job with it.

EnriqueH For me, the 70s Spiderman live action movies were great fun. I look back on it with a lot of fondness and nostalgia. Someone unfamiliar with the series may not like it, but then again, you might if you know what to expect.This is a low-budget made for TV film. The villains are regular villains in the form of a millionaire and his henchmen. If you know that, than I think your chances of enjoying this are better.Despite its low-budget and lack of supervillains, I think the film still felt like an "epic" adventure. I really liked the musical score in the film. The acting was solid all the way around even if the 70s clothing styles may make you laugh.Even today, I think Nicholas Hammond was a great choice to play Peter Parker/Spiderman. He was very convincing in the role, and fun to watch. I'd place his casting up there with Christopher Reeve as Superman and Linda Carter as Wonder Woman.The rest of the cast is very good. JoAnna Cameron made an excellent companion for Peter Parker. Robert Simon was solid as J.Jonah Jameson, especially when threw a tantrum. Chip Fields was great as Rita. And Michael Pataki was great as Capt. Barbera.I understand that this particular film was shot entirely in LA, which I wish I never read, because I always felt that the New York scenes FELT like New York.As far as I'm concerned, the creators of this series made the very best they could with their small budget. I imagine with a Hollywood movie budget, the same people involved here would've made a Spiderman movie franchise equally enjoyable, but with special effects and super-villains to match. That's not to say that the effects are bad. Just limited. The wall-crawling, web-slinging and fight scenes are solid.I hope these Spiderman adventures will be available on DVD someday because I would definitely buy them.

Mr Bungle Well you've read the comics, seen the various cartoon's and then you watch this. "Sweet jesus what is going on" was my first thought when viewing this nugget of 70's nostalgia. The first shock came when I saw good old Peter Parker, not only was he sporting a very fetching donkey jacket (I could almost smell the tramp urine) he also had the most ridiculous haircut, "ah well its only seventies fashion" I thought to my self, but no, not only had PP taken up the substitute school teachers wardrobe, he had somehow lost all his classic wit (probably all them nasty drugs). No longer was Peter Parker the nerd who became cool, he was just a nerd. Then he donned the spandex...Gone was the athletic wall crawler who swung his way round the city with ease, only to be replaced by a positively lethargic "2cm per hour wall crawling speed" imposter, instead of gracefully traversing the city roof tops via his web shooters, he seemed to prefer to run about in a very foppish manner indeed (usually sticking to the one roof top)although on one occasion in the film he does swing from one building to another (although it is the exact same footage that was used in the first film and his webs are now inch thick white rope that can self tie knots around poles and other protruding objects). Then there's the fight scenes, In the comics he goes head to head with people such as Rhino and other massive super strong villians, In this he gets smacked by skinny "Jeff Capes" lookalikes, (so much for spider strength). On the villian front there is Mr. White who's about as threatening as your mum. Ah well for all its faults it is part of the Spiderman legacy, even if it does reflect the cheese of the seventies far too well. Watch it if your a die hard Spider-fan (call it spiderman the wilderness years) but if your new to the world of spider-man, read the comics and wait for Sam Raimi's film.

Truman-10 YOU can criticise this movie in every department - if you compare it to films like Superman and Batman. But if you look at it as a movie of its time - the late 70's - and just let it wash over you, it's great stuff.The fight scenes are funky rather than violent, the stunts are still impressive even today - man, is that guy really being pulled up a skyscraper by a rope? - and the whole thing is just so entertaining, if not thrilling. The bad guys are lousy, and the whole thing didn't cost much, but just seeing Spidey running around makes you smile.