See, this is why I question my own values of what makes a "good movie".. follow me if you can on my little stream of consciousness babble:

ok. army of darkness.. evil dead.. old sam raimi stuff. To tell you the truth, the fire time i saw army of darkness, i hated it. i thought it was boring. but it grew on me after being forced to watch it a bunch of times, and i ended up loving it just because it was so weird and lame. so here is where i get stuck. the 'bad' qualities of army of darkness are still there. soooo many years later- in my eyes- sam raimi is still making movies like that. didn't a few parts of spiderman seem awkward? i dont know, that's just what i felt i saw. the same type of thing that i got from army of darkness. i believe a movie (that has a weak plot) has to occupy you with other things to stop the viewer from dissecting the plot. big budget special effects movies can do that. suspension of disbelief works too, but there's no "suspension of cheese" to help me with this movie

maybe i just didn't buy whats-his-name as parker. he seemed very uncomfortable in his own skin (and no, i know parker was a nerd, but his discomfort would have been genuine). the plot was weak. and i know that's because it was a comic to movie, but that kind of thing is hard to pull off. you have to take what was simple cell drawings and visualize all of this in the real world on film.. pretty tough to do and not go over the top of cheesy (batman).

I don't know. I wasn't a big spiderman fan, but some of us nerds will never be happy with film adaptations of previous works. they will never be "true to their roots", as long as we're here picking apart the mundane details.

and that brings my thoughts to another point.. they can try to do all that and be true to the source, but cinema is different from a comic. you have to make things easier to digest because you're dealing with a larger more generalized target audience. so a lot of detail gets thrown out of the equation.