Lack of good storyline.

Disappointment for a huge fan!

Crappy film

.Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

I really don't understand the low score Spiders 2 has here on IMDb: whilst an over-ambitious script combined with obvious budgetary limitations mean that the film suffers from some pretty awful CGI effects (particularly in its closing moments), it still proves to be very entertaining stuff.Part mad scientist flick and part big bug B-movie, this 'sequel' (in name only) to the surprisingly fun Spiders offers a pretty inventive (although logic-free) plot, plenty of gruesome effects, and lots of general silliness that fans of low-budget horror should lap up. And for a Nu-Image film made in Bulgaria, you can't really ask for much more than that, can you?Stephanie Niznik and Greg Cromer play Alexandra and Jason, a married couple who wind up being rescued by the crew of a dilapidated cargo ship after their yacht is capsized during a storm. However, they soon discover that they are not quite as lucky as they first think: the ship is being used as a floating laboratory for genetic experiments, and the ship's evil doctor has Jason lined up to be a host for one of his mutant spider eggs...With the director pacing his film carefully, obviously saving most of the film's budget for the FX-laden action at the climax, Spiders 2 may disappoint those looking for non-stop creepy-crawly horror. Fortunately, a great collection of well realised characters (Richard Moll as mad Dr. Grbac gives a wonderfully camp performance, and full marks go to the slimy looking bunch who play the ship's motley crew) and an enjoyably daft script ensure that the film holds one's attention until the arachnids finally go on the rampage.6.5 out of 10, rounded up to 7 for IMDb.

let's see now... Spiders 2... ummm.... the special effects are just silly..... the dialogue is wooden, weird, and hard to take seriously... the mad scientist acts and talks and looks like a Saturday morning cartoon character... the story has lots of plot and logic loopholes, verging on the ridiculous....the story is predictable and is very very very slow moving -- we can all see where it's going, so why can't the characters?actually you could save this movie by taking out virtually all of the dialogue -- not a word of it is necessary --- then taking out redundant and unnecessary scenes -- and bringing in a better cinematographer with more knowledge about dramatic lighting. It would work okay as a silent movie, about ten or fifteen minutes long.

The first "Spiders" is one of my guiltiest guilty pleasures in the horror genre, simply because that movie is just too stupid NOT to enjoy! It had grotesque special effects, featured every single cliché of the freshly revived creature-feature sub genre and it never took itself too seriously, which resulted in a fairly entertaining & campy flick. Part two regretfully is the complete opposite of all that. It tries to be scary and original, which is a pretty bad approach if you're dealing with mutated spiders that look as gigantic as a house! Despite the remotely promising opening sequences (featuring an authentic pirate attack!) and a lot of gory killings near the end, "Spiders 2" is also a very boring film and that's really unforgivable for a post-2000 horror production. The sail boat of a young couple sinks during a storm but they're rescued by a huge cargo ship. The exclusively male crew members are insufferably friendly even though it's more than obvious that they're naughty villains, especially the annoying captain of the ship and the stereotypical mad doctor with the white beard. It takes another tedious half hour before it's confirmed that the cargo ship actually is a floating research lab where the sinister scientist feeds human bodies to over-sized tarantulas. The ramshackle old cargo ship forms an interesting location, but crap-director Sam Firstenberg nearly isn't talented enough to make full use of it. The CGI-effects are atrocious, as are the acting performances and it's really pathetic to see how everyone involved in this Nu-Image production takes this thing so damn seriously.

I have seen a lot of bad movies in my life but i just watched this on Pay Per View and it was bad. The story had holes everywhere. All of a sudden the spiders move very very very slowly then it later on can run really really fast. The writing was terrible. It had lines in it that were not necessary at all. That acting was of very poor quality. HOW DO THESE PEOPLE GET WORK!?!?!?! It burns me to see the people who wake up one morning and decide they want to be actors without having any training whatsoever. The guy has a spider in his gut and he says just leave me here. Or he says No I'll be okay. The giant spider at the end I have some questions about. HOW IN THE BLOODY HELL DID IT GET SO BIG?!?!?! And if it was that big how did it manage to get to the top deck? Secondly when they say that they are digesting their first meal........Spiders digest on the outside. They don't digest on the inside. If it were possible I would give this movie a -10 rating and the writer should be shot. And the director should be shot for considering making this movie.