Despite not being overly impressed with the first installment of “Spider-Man,” which he rated 2 ½ stars, and being even less enthusiastic about the third movie in Sam Raimi’s trilogy, Ebert was captivated by the second film. In his review, he praised “Spider-Man 2,” featuring Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker and Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson, as “the best superhero movie since the modern genre was launched.” Ebert commended Raimi for seamlessly blending special effects with a compelling human story, maintaining a dynamic balance between its parallel plots.

Fast forward four years, and Ebert equally lauded “Iron Man.” Although distinct from “Spider-Man 2,” Ebert was drawn to Robert Downey Jr.’s captivating portrayal of Tony Stark, describing it as “intriguing and unexpected.” He noted that while Downey might not possess the typical gravitas associated with superheroes, director Jon Favreau took a bold risk by casting him and allowing Downey to showcase his unique style. Ebert concluded that Downey’s strength as Stark lies in his intelligence, wit, and the sense that his public facade conceals deep personal pain. By capitalizing on these traits, Favreau crafted a remarkable film.

“Spider-Man 2” exemplifies what superhero movies could achieve before the era of expansive cinematic universes from Marvel and DC. Ebert, who wasn’t averse to superhero films and appreciated works like “X2: X-Men United” and “Daredevil,” as well as giving “Superman” four stars, was often critical of the genre’s tendency to prioritize superpowers over character depth. However, “Spider-Man 2” stood out by delving into the emotions and psyche of Peter Parker, rather than overwhelming audiences with Spider-Man’s exploits.

“Spider-Man 2” is the fruition of what a superhero movie could be before Marvel and DC decided to make cinematic universes. While Roger Ebert was far from a snob about superhero films, liking everything from “X2: X-Men United” to “Daredevil,” and giving “Superman,” the film that kicked off the modern superhero era in 1978, 4 stars, he was tough on the genre. He wasn’t a fan of many superhero films’ focus on superpowers over the humans who bear them. But with “Spider-Man 2,” the genre reaches its apex by not overloading us with Spider-Man and instead choosing to explore Peter Parker’s heart and mind.

In “Spider-Man 2,” Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) can’t use his Spidey powers. It seems his responsibilities as a superhero and his desire for a normal life are in conflict, and he ends up giving up on Spider-Man. At the same time, Doctor Octavius (Alfred Molina) mentors Peter, only for Doc Ock to have an accident with a tentacled harness that begins to take over his mind, leading to him becoming an antagonist to Spider-Man. This combination worked beautifully for Ebert. The movie was the culmination of an era of individual series about individual superheroes, and it delivered. According to Ebert, “Spider-Man 2” is “a real movie, full-blooded and smart, with qualities even for those who have no idea who Stan Lee is.”

While “Iron Man” was released only 4 years later, it took place in an entirely different era of superhero movies. “Iron Man” was the first movie released in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, a superhero extravaganza that is still going almost two decades later. While it’s now hard to separate individual movies like “Iron Man” from crossover movies like “The Avengers,” in 2008, “Iron Man” came across as a movie about an individual hero, and Roger Ebert was here for it.

“Iron Man” is about Tony Stark’s (Robert Downey Jr.) evolution from a warmongering arms dealer to a guy who decides his company will stop manufacturing weapons, even as he makes his own suit of armor, complete with violent devices, at home. Ebert appreciated the movie, especially Robert Downey Jr.’s role in it, but Ebert also didn’t see the evolution of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in its entirety. In fact, Ebert died before the third movie in the “Iron Man” trilogy came out.

Although he saw the start of Marvel’s great cinematic takeover, up through the release of “The Avengers” in 2012, which he gave three stars, he didn’t see the MCU reach its apex with “Avengers: Endgame” and its bumpy ride since. It would be fascinating to know what Ebert thought of these developments, especially since, although “Iron Man” was clearly a high water mark, most of what came afterward was not quite as good to downright abysmal. Still, we can safely take his advice about “Iron Man,” even if we ignore everything that came afterwards in the MCU.