kenneth9265 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.

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.

DrWorm 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.

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.