Sure, a lot of people are using the good old "SJW" stuff and that sucks.

However, I can understand the ones about the animation. I personally loved the movie, and the animation. But I saw a few comments that rang sincere and even though I don't agree, I understand that they don't necessarily come from the "angry white guys" demographic. You'll see :

• strobes (not for everyone)
• blur and duplicated lines (artistic choice I think, seemed 3D oriented, I only saw it in 2D)
• very fast movements. We rarely have the time to pause and admire (a bit like the LEGO and LEGO Batman movies).

I think that "sloppy" is a very poor choice of words, but I can understand some people not being as enthusiastic as me about the style.

@krillep said:

"Roger Moore" from Movie Nation - "a clever conceit ruined by sloppy animation."
Sloppy animation? I'm sorry, but anyone with the worst of eyesights could see clearly that it doesn't have "sloppy animation".

I wasn't sure about the choppy animation style when I saw the trailer.

When I watched the movie today I was so invested in it from the start, that I didn't even notice it really. The comic book look and mix of different styles made it one of the best animated movies I have seen in years.

"Armond White" from National Review - "The temerity of retelling a Spider-Man tale by pandering to the nonwhite demographic"
Apparently using the Spider-man that is for many the most popular one, even more so than good old Peter Parker, "panders" to the nonwhite demographic.

Yeah, that is really weird. The main character is nonwhite, so several side characters are automatically nonwhite as well, mainly his family, but almost everone else is white. So having a nonwhite main character counts as pandering apparently?