La riposte de l'homme-araignée

I am sorry, but this movie was worst the then first one. How can you have a superhero movie without a super-Villain? Where is the web slinging! Why do he need transportation to get around?(helicopter to go the the roof of a building????). With a low budget and boring storyline, this movie is not even worth a rental! Hammond is too old to play Peter Parker, and where is Mary Jane, and Betty Brant? How is it that the Spiderman in the comics can take on Doctor Octopus, but in this made-for-TV movie, he gets his A*S kicked by TWO thugs? My children of 15, 11 an 8 saw this movie and threaten to call Child Protective Services for being cruel for making them watch this joke of a movie...Please, and I do mean please....I am asking all network media bosses only for one thing....If you going to make a Superhero movie for TV make sure that you stick to the original ideal of the comic and make sure that the Superhero has a Super-Villain to fight with.

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.

Although this isn't terrible for a low-budget TV movie, it doesn't really work. This is mainly for one reason: Spider-Man hardly gets to do anything! Most of the movie is Peter Parker stumbling into an incident involving a nuclear bomb, and stuttering to people when they ask him about Spider-Man. A good effort was made here, but it just doesn't have a Spidey feel to it. They should have gotten one of the comics' writers to come up with a story for this one. Oh, well.

Spider-Man Strikes Back is nowhere near as good as the movies in Sam Raimi's excellent trilogy. But it's still pretty darn enjoyable.

It doesn't have a lot in common with the comic books, but neither did the Hulk series from the 70s, and that one is considered one of the best shows based on a Marvel comic book.

Nicholas Hammond is good as Peter Parker (the hair is hilarious, though...the 70s was a tacky decade), and aside from the visible web shooter and belt, the suit doesn't look any worse than Christopher Reeve's Superman outfit. J. Jonah Jameson is very funny, and the fight scenes and stunts are exciting to watch. I felt more dizzy watching this than any of the scenes in the new ones.

I can't remember anything offensive in it, the fight scenes are bloodless, and there's no nudity, except for some ladies in bikinis. If you have small kids, it's probably better to show them this than the scary movies in the Raimi trilogy.

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.