Spider Man Review

Both Ebert and Gilchrist liked the movie. Gilbert had more criticism while Ebert thought the movie was great. Gilbert critiqued the movie by looking at it scene by scene, while Ebert looked at the movie as a whole. Gilchrist says, "The conflicts are more serious, more pronounced, and in the end, less satisfyingly resolved, which works for a serial tome like a comic but doesn't quite satisfy when it comes to wrapping up a $200 million film that opens mid-summer and aims to capture the popcorn-gorging throngs." Basically Gilbert it saying that he felt some scenes were too long and unnecessary. Also he thinks that the end of the movie being dramatic and not really resolved doesn't work, maybe for comics that comes out with a new issue every month, but not for a movie. Although Gilchrist had a lot of negative feedback, he ended his review saying, "All in all, it's a pretty great film, but not so great that I can throw away my magnifying glass just yet." So he didn't hate the movie, he just thought that in could have been improved to be "the placeholder for the new best comic book film ever." Ebert on the other hand praised the film, he said, "now this is what a superhero movie should be." Ebert states that the dialogue and the action both stay alive throughout the movie, which is unlike other movies in this genre which we usually perk up during the action scenes and but wade grimly through the dialogue. Both had a different opinion about the same movie, i guess its just how you look at it. Looking at it scene by scene like Gilchrist i supposed you noticed more of the flaws which he pointed out, and if you look at it as a whole, like Ebert, i supposed the flaws aren't as noticeable since you are not nit-picking at each thing. I also found it interesting though that Gilchrist loved the first Spider man, but Ebert found it disappointing. So during their reviews of the second one their opinions switched.