Star Wars jokes, huh, Disney? Not trying to be subtle anymore?
It's a remake of Spider-Man 2. Now I know that's a dumb criticism to be made, because really, how many different stories for a Spider-Man movie can you do at this point? Well, actually a lot! There's how many fucking comic books stories from The Amazing Spider-Man and Spectacular Spider-Man that Marvel Studios and Sony could've pulled from? But NOPE. We get an almost scene-by-scene copy of Spider-Man 2 with Toby Maguire. And my biggest problem with that decision, is they didn't ever top that film once in the entire run-time. There's even a scene that directly mirrors the "Raindrops are falling on my head" scene from 2, where Parker is now an ordinary guy without the suit. What a joke.
Without comparing to the original movies, what are some positives? Tom Holland is a great choice for Peter Parker, and he sticks closer to the age and personality of the original comics. I love him from The Lost City Of Z by James Gray, so it was cool to see him get a big role like this. The spidey-suit upgrades were an inventive fun thing to watch, so that added a little humorous element to the story, even if it was a little too reminiscent of the Ant-Man we just got, but Tom Holland makes it work. A couple of the jokes landed really good, especially the acting from Jon Favreau, but there were multiple desperate attempts at using memes to get younger viewers to laugh, and that got annoying. Diego Tutweiller has an excellent essay about the "Humor of Juxtaposition" in Marvel movies, so go read that too. JMichael Keaton as the villain was a fantastic choice. He doesn't have any super-insane freak-out moments, but his intimidation was what made his character interesting. And also, with the way they wrote him, you can't really love or hate him. I was actually just a sliver sympathetic towards the end when he's explaining his actions to Peter Parker. But I never felt any of the dramatic weight that I did in the originals.
And this is where I get into my major problem with this movie and the other MCU movies. They feel so disconnected from the real world, that what they Avengers do have no effect on civilization and not a single person is affected by their actions. Why don't we get to see the reactions of people getting killed when a plane crashes into a city-scope tower? It's obvious people were harmed and killed, but why don't we see that? Because Marvel wants to keep their movies fun and accessible to wide-spread audiences. All the dramatic tension in every single Marvel movie I've seen so far, is so superficial and without consequence. Call me biased to DC all you want, I'm not, but at least in Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice, you see the effects that Superman's attack on Zod had on Metropolis and the world. You see the people who were affected by those actions, IE, the little girl who lost her mother, the employee at Wayne enterprises who lost his legs, etc. We never see anything like that in the MCU movies, Spider-Man Homecoming included. The only time it gets even close to this aspect is when Peter's Decathlon class is stuck in an elevator about to drop, or the ferry with people on it. But just like the other movies, it plays it up for laughs, so there's no serious weight to the situation, because you know none of them are going to be killed, and you don't see any people really cowering in fear. You know what would've made that ferry scene work even better? Seeing a mother protect maybe a child in her arms, and then seeing Peter Parker's reaction, realizing the gravity of the situation. But NOPE. We have a fat black guy say, "Yeah, go Spider-man!" What the fuck.
I firmly believe at this point no one will ever make a Spider-Man or superhero movie in general that tops Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2. Do people just not understand what made that movie so incredible? People sure like to praise, but do they really know why?
Review by filmtoasterVIP 3BlockedParent2020-03-03T01:28:00Z
Star Wars jokes, huh, Disney? Not trying to be subtle anymore?
It's a remake of Spider-Man 2. Now I know that's a dumb criticism to be made, because really, how many different stories for a Spider-Man movie can you do at this point? Well, actually a lot! There's how many fucking comic books stories from The Amazing Spider-Man and Spectacular Spider-Man that Marvel Studios and Sony could've pulled from? But NOPE. We get an almost scene-by-scene copy of Spider-Man 2 with Toby Maguire. And my biggest problem with that decision, is they didn't ever top that film once in the entire run-time. There's even a scene that directly mirrors the "Raindrops are falling on my head" scene from 2, where Parker is now an ordinary guy without the suit. What a joke.
Without comparing to the original movies, what are some positives? Tom Holland is a great choice for Peter Parker, and he sticks closer to the age and personality of the original comics. I love him from The Lost City Of Z by James Gray, so it was cool to see him get a big role like this. The spidey-suit upgrades were an inventive fun thing to watch, so that added a little humorous element to the story, even if it was a little too reminiscent of the Ant-Man we just got, but Tom Holland makes it work. A couple of the jokes landed really good, especially the acting from Jon Favreau, but there were multiple desperate attempts at using memes to get younger viewers to laugh, and that got annoying. Diego Tutweiller has an excellent essay about the "Humor of Juxtaposition" in Marvel movies, so go read that too. JMichael Keaton as the villain was a fantastic choice. He doesn't have any super-insane freak-out moments, but his intimidation was what made his character interesting. And also, with the way they wrote him, you can't really love or hate him. I was actually just a sliver sympathetic towards the end when he's explaining his actions to Peter Parker. But I never felt any of the dramatic weight that I did in the originals.
And this is where I get into my major problem with this movie and the other MCU movies. They feel so disconnected from the real world, that what they Avengers do have no effect on civilization and not a single person is affected by their actions. Why don't we get to see the reactions of people getting killed when a plane crashes into a city-scope tower? It's obvious people were harmed and killed, but why don't we see that? Because Marvel wants to keep their movies fun and accessible to wide-spread audiences. All the dramatic tension in every single Marvel movie I've seen so far, is so superficial and without consequence. Call me biased to DC all you want, I'm not, but at least in Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice, you see the effects that Superman's attack on Zod had on Metropolis and the world. You see the people who were affected by those actions, IE, the little girl who lost her mother, the employee at Wayne enterprises who lost his legs, etc. We never see anything like that in the MCU movies, Spider-Man Homecoming included. The only time it gets even close to this aspect is when Peter's Decathlon class is stuck in an elevator about to drop, or the ferry with people on it. But just like the other movies, it plays it up for laughs, so there's no serious weight to the situation, because you know none of them are going to be killed, and you don't see any people really cowering in fear. You know what would've made that ferry scene work even better? Seeing a mother protect maybe a child in her arms, and then seeing Peter Parker's reaction, realizing the gravity of the situation. But NOPE. We have a fat black guy say, "Yeah, go Spider-man!" What the fuck.
I firmly believe at this point no one will ever make a Spider-Man or superhero movie in general that tops Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2. Do people just not understand what made that movie so incredible? People sure like to praise, but do they really know why?