Post by Sgt. AWOLaLot on Jul 11, 2017 0:21:13 GMT -5
Watched Spider-Man: Homecoming on Sunday and watched Raimi's first Spider-Man the night before, so here's the reviews for those.
Written July 9th, 2017: Spider-Man (2002)
"Well I'm up very late, but for a good reason. Tomorrow (or today technically) I'll be headed to the theater to watch Spider-Man: Homecoming. So of course I had to watch one of my favorite super hero films of all time and a film that has influenced and inspired me since my childhood: Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man film. I already did a review of Spider-Man 2 (I might update it though since it doesn't go as in depth as later reviews I've written), and decided I had to write one on this movie. I'll also be revealing a certain... attraction I have that can mostly be traced back to these movies (and Harry Potter a little) that three or four of you ladies will find to be, well, interesting. Anyway, on to the film.
Spider-Man (2002) is directed by Sam Raimi and stars Tobey Maguire, William Dafoe, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Rosemary Harris, Cliff Robertson, and J.K. Simmons. It tells the origin story of how Peter Parker, a socially awkward but mentally brilliant young man, is bitten by a spider and gains amazing powers. These powers come at a price however, and after the tragic death of his Uncle Ben (there really is no need for a spoiler alert on that right?) Peter decides to take on a heavy responsibility and use his powers to fight crime. Along with fighting crime, he also has to balance college, a job, and trying to win the girl of his dreams, Mary Jane Watson.
There are a lot of great things about this movie, but by far the strongest aspect is the characters. Opinions will differ, but to me Tobey Maguire is great as Peter Parker and Spider-Man. He brings an earnestness to the role that makes you want to see him succeed. He's just a young man trying to do the right thing, but often times life throws him a curve ball that'll bring him down again. It's these real life problems that make Spider-Man so relatable. I myself can relate to Peter quite a bit, especially Maguire's version. Socially awkward when I was younger, not great with girls, more on the nerdy side (though he's more of a science/physics wiz than me), more of a quiet demeanor, and... an old, seemingly insatiable attraction to redheads. Yeah, it's true. They are my kryptonite and I blame these movies as the catalyst for it.
And speaking of that, there's Kirsten Dunst as Peter's redheaded love interest, Mary Jane Watson. Dunst is pretty good, but out of the leads I'd say she has the weakest performance. There are some great scenes with her though; the most notable of course being the upside-down kiss with Spider-Man. It's also nice to see Peter get more comfortable around her as the film progresses, showing his maturity.
William Dafoe as Norman Osborn/The Green Goblin another part I just have to like. Dafoe goes all out as the villain, giving a fun performance complete with an evil laugh. Norman is also an interesting villain because he basically becomes a villain on accident. His company, Oscorp, is under the risk of losing it's funding to supply materials for the military. Taking matters into his own hands, Norman decides to test an enhancement serum on himself to prove it is ready for use. However, it causes him to go insane and basically creates a Gollum alter-ego. And one of the most interesting parts of the film is the way that the Green Goblin tests Spider-Man. The Goblin gives insight on the consequences of being a superhero to Spider-Man and offers that they join forces. In a hero vs. villain fight there will be collateral damage. This all comes to fruition at the climax where Spider-Man is forced to choose between saving Mary Jane or a group of children. In the words of the Goblin, "Misery, misery, misery, that's what you've chosen." As cheesy as The Green Goblin can come across, he is still a good villain because of how he tests Spider-Man and pushes him to his limits. It's actually reminiscent of how the Joker would test Batman 6 years later in The Dark Knight. The only difference is Goblin doesn't win.
The rest of the cast is good to great. James Franco plays Harry Osborn, Norman's son and Peter's long-time friend. Harry is a jealous character however. He never really received much love from his father, so when Norman shows interest in Peter after meeting him, this makes even more frustrated. Perhaps as a way of revenge, Harry then pursues Mary Jane.
Then there's Rosemary Harris and Cliff Robertson as Aunt May and Uncle Ben. For me, this is how I see these two characters. The younger, attractive Aunt May in Civil War just threw me off. While I'm sure I'll get used to it, Rosemary Harris just plays the role so well I don't know if anyone else will be able to top her. And let's not forget J.K. Simmons as James Johah Jameson. What a perfect casting choice this was. Simmons has to be quick on his verbal feet, and certainly does well. He isn't in the movie for very long, but steals the show when he is.
And now I want to talk about possibly my favorite sequence in the film. That is Uncle Ben's death and Peter's hunt for the killer. This might be my favorite sequence from any super hero movie. The emotions that Peter go through in this scene are truly something to behold. Sadness and tears as he realizes his uncle dies in front of him. Anger and vengeance when he hears where the killer is headed. Fear when he has to swing for the first time. Then back to anger until the gunman falls out the window. This sequence is amazing, and I really wished they had not made Sandman the real killer (which happened to be an accident). It cheapens what this scene originally stood for.
Now for the technical aspects. Sam Raimi's directing style is something I've always liked about his Spider-Man trilogy. This is before the days of the Dark Knight Trilogy or cinematic universes, so there wasn't yet a push for super heroes to be more "gritty" or "dark," nor did these films have to worry about tying in with a larger, loosely regulated story arc. This means that Spider-Man has some directing choices that would probably be considered too cheesy for more modern super hero films. I know, I'm the guy that said, "I'm a sucker for drama, broodiness, darkness, etc.", but Raimi's films are just so much fun to watch. He had his way of filming it and didn't care. Some examples include these: there are a few scenes that show newspaper headlines where the newspaper will spin onto the screen; there are some quick camera movements in the horizontal direction where the background is blurred; and quick closeups to characters' faces. It makes the film seem a little campy, but it's done in a fun way. And one thing that Raimi actually does VERY well is balancing the emotions and moods in the film. The film has plenty of lighthearted moments, but they're usually quick and won't be long before Raimi switches to a more serious tone. There are even a few scenes where they seem to switch instantly, like adding some visual comedy to the action scenes or Norman's, "Oh" before his final fate.
As for the special effects, they haven't all aged the best. Thankfully this movie has a good mix between practical effects and CGI, and the CGI was used sparingly. That being said when it is used it's pretty easy to tell. The scenes with Spider-Man swinging through the city though still look pretty good, and are some of my favorite shots in the movie.
Then there's Danny Elfman's wonderful score. While most score enthusiasts will say that Elfman's score for Batman (1989) is the greatest super hero score, I have to rank Spider-Man higher. The main titles is my favorite super hero theme ever written, and it accompanies one of the most creative opening credit sequences I've ever seen. Then there's the "Revenge" cue, which accompanies the sequence with Uncle Ben's death. I also like the love theme for Peter and Mary Jane. It's not one that gets talked about a lot, but it's a softer theme I've always liked.
Considering the length of this review, I'm sure it's easy to tell I love this movie. It has some flaws like aging special effects and cartoony action sequences, but I still think it holds up. And when you think about it, this is the film (along with the original X-Men) that really started the super hero film craze. While other people would point at Ironman or Batman Begins, X-Men and Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy are the movies that got it taking off, for better or worse. Well, that's it. I'm excited to see Homecoming and to see what Holland brings to the table in a full length movie. We'll see if he can supplant Maguire as my favorite Spider-Man. And remember, "With great power, comes great responsibility.""
Written July 10th, 2017: Spider-Man: Homecoming
"Time to talk about Spider-Man: Homecoming. Marvel has done it again and managed to make an entertaining, crowd pleasing super hero film. This is also definitely the best Spider-Man movie since Spider-Man 2. And I must admit, there are some things it does better. It makes me feel a little conflicted actually, but I'm glad this movie was good. As a result though, I will be making some comparisons to Raimi's films. It's not to take away from what Homecoming accomplishes. It's just because Spider-Man means a lot to me and I think it's fun to point out the differences and what one film may have done better (or worse) than the other. And as good as Homecoming was, there are a few flaws and drawbacks. There is also one story element they completely glossed over that is central to Peter's character development, and in my opinion it was a mistake.
Spider-Man: Homecoming is directed by Jon Watts and stars Tom Holland, Michael Keaton, Robert Downey, Jr., Zendaya Coleman, and Jacob Batalon. The film takes place in the time right after the events of Captain America: Civil War and Peter's involvement at the airport fight in Germany. It focuses on how Peter wants to prove himself ready to become an Avenger and join them on more dangerous missions. However, Stark isn't keen on it and wants Peter to focus on smaller events happening in New York. Stark also has Happy, his head of security, keeping an eye on Peter.
This brings me to the first thing I liked about this film, the scale of the story. Spider-Man in film has always been a hero that's dealt with problems and villains of a smaller scale. A part of that is because New York is such an important part of his identity, so he only deals with problems in New York. There have never been alien invasions, beams in the sky, or robot armies. In fact, Doc Oc's fusion reactor is the closest thing to a world ending event he's dealt with. It's nice to go back to a smaller and lighthearted scale, similar to what Ant-Man did after Age of Ultron.
The acting and characters were also very good and that's always been Marvel's best strength. It also has one of the better Marvel villains we've had in a while. Michael Keaton (who once upon a time wore the cape and cowl as Batman) plays Vulture (Adrian Toomes) and had some decent character development. He is basically an arms dealer dealing in weapons with alien technology. He also has understandable motivations for his actions (which I will not reveal, because one was unexpected). And Keaton's acting is very good. One sequence in particular I really liked is when he's talking to Peter in his vehicle. I won't say anymore than that, but the tension in the scene was handled wonderfully and it was probably my favorite scene in the movie.
Then of course there's Tom Holland. I admit it. Holland is probably the best Spider-Man we've gotten. He's way better than Garfield and manages to carry this movie along very well. Which I must say is very impressive. Holland is 21, and here he is acting with heavyweights like Robert Downey, Jr. and Michael Keaton holding his own. It might not be Oscar worthy, but I applaud Holland for putting on such a strong performance. He manages to be the nerdy high school Peter Parker we're familiar with (unlike Garfield's) and has the quick mouth and funny lines as Spider-Man (which while Maguire had a line here and there, Holland is certainly funnier). I also liked the idea of this movie being a coming of age story. Peter is eager to become an Avenger and feels he's ready, even though he isn't. That's what Tony Stark is trying to get Peter to understand, and it's interesting to watch Stark play the part of a mentor. He's not in the film very much (which is a good thing or the focus on Peter would be lost) and plays more of an aloof mentor, but he does care about what happens to Peter. He also sees some of himself in Peter, and there were some callbacks to the original Ironman film's themes that I really liked. As I said, it's a coming of age story and Peter needs to know what it is to be a hero before he is allowed to truly become one.
The rest of the cast was good as well. Jacob Batalon as Peter's friend Ned Leeds was entertaining to watch. He's a little more of a comic relief character, but it's done smartly and realistically. He also gets the chance to help Spider-Man out and be a sidekick. Downey, Jr. brings it as he always does. Zendaya Coleman plays a sarcastic, non-conformative, intelligent side character named Michelle. While Peter has a different love interest in this film (who happens to be a senior, and he's a sophomore *clap clap*), she seemed to be written to be one later on. I have one slight problem with it though, which I'll get to later.
The directing in this film was also pretty good. The action sequences were entertaining and didn't have camera cuts every 2 seconds. But this is where my problems and comparisons will start. The directing and production of this movie were all well done and competent. But... it feels like the other Marvel films. And I know this is a fine line to walk on. As a director you want, or dare I say even need, your film to have some stylistic qualities so it can stand on its own. Yet at the same time if you go too different fans won't be getting quite what they expected. Captain America: Winter Soldier and Civil War managed to pull this off, with the Russo brothers creating two of the more serious Marvel films we've seen. But ultimately, every one of these directors are subject to what the studio wants. And that's fine, because the majority of these films are good to great. But it also means there aren't as many risks taken, which ironically could become the biggest problem for the MCU. I wanted to see Captain America die in Civil War. Not because I hate his character, but it would have made for a more powerful story and ending. That's one thing that Raimi's movies have over this one. Raimi's style is all over them, and things were good until the studio forced Venom on him for Spider-Man 3 (he had no intention of using Venom yet). I know I'm probably in the minority here, but I want to see Marvel take more risks. Heck, I was expecting Loki to die in Thor: Ragnorak: until I read a story that he might be in Infinity Wars. And taking risks doesn't just have to be killing off characters; it can also be trying different genres (like Logan being a pseudo-western) or more diverse directing styles (like Raimi's more cartoony, but earnest style). This is something I'm directing towards Marvel as a whole, and not just Homecoming.
The score was composed by Michael Giacchino, who seems to be the new go-to composer for the MCU since Brian Tyler was let go. Giacchino's score was pretty good. It actually had a theme I could remember walking out of the film, and I liked his use of pizzicato to mirror the crawling of a spider. However, it isn't as good as Danny Elfman's score.
Going back to the actions sequences in Homecoming, they were fun and entertaining. But this is one area where I give the Raimi films the advantage. The splitting ship scene and the final fight with Vulture are probably the two best action sequences, and I really liked them. But compared to the train fight with Doc Oc, the final confrontation with Green Goblin when the Goblin makes him choose and ends up beating the tar out of Spider-Man, or the revenge sequence when Peter is going after his uncle's killer, they just don't feel like they have as much at stake.
Which brings me to my biggest problem with the movie in terms of the storyline. They completely glossed over Uncle Ben's death. Now, I understand a lot of people didn't need to see Uncle Ben die again or get the "With great power, comes great responsibility" speech. But completely omitting them is a big mistake, because his Uncle Ben's death is the defining moment that makes Peter turn into Spider-Man in the first place. I think there's one line where Peter talks about his Aunt May going through some tough times, but it moves on from that very quickly. And even if they did mention him and I missed it, it's still a plot point that should have been in there somewhere.
Another smaller part that got me was Zendaya's character, Michelle. She apparently will also answer to MJ... And all I can think is: MJ means Mary Jane, and Mary Jane Watson is supposed to be a white, redheaded girl. I'm sorry but this Michelle being the new MJ doesn't work for me.
EDIT: I read an article after I wrote this and this criticism is unwarranted. They called her MJ as a homage to Mary Jane, and she isn't associated or meant to be a replacement for Mary Jane. My mistake.
And I just realized that there was no Harry Osborne either. Maybe they'll introduce him later, but he was another integral part in shaping Peter's character.
But overall, this was a good movie. Spider-Man: Homecoming is again the best Spider-Man movie since Spider-Man 2. The performances were good, Keaton made a very good villain, and Holland makes a great Spider-Man. It's a crowd pleasing movie with a good script, and it connects with the Avengers universe quite well and smartly. The biggest problem with this movie is that it just doesn't quite stand on its own. It's a good movie, but it's a "safe" movie."
Written July 9th, 2017: Spider-Man (2002)
"Well I'm up very late, but for a good reason. Tomorrow (or today technically) I'll be headed to the theater to watch Spider-Man: Homecoming. So of course I had to watch one of my favorite super hero films of all time and a film that has influenced and inspired me since my childhood: Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man film. I already did a review of Spider-Man 2 (I might update it though since it doesn't go as in depth as later reviews I've written), and decided I had to write one on this movie. I'll also be revealing a certain... attraction I have that can mostly be traced back to these movies (and Harry Potter a little) that three or four of you ladies will find to be, well, interesting. Anyway, on to the film.
Spider-Man (2002) is directed by Sam Raimi and stars Tobey Maguire, William Dafoe, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Rosemary Harris, Cliff Robertson, and J.K. Simmons. It tells the origin story of how Peter Parker, a socially awkward but mentally brilliant young man, is bitten by a spider and gains amazing powers. These powers come at a price however, and after the tragic death of his Uncle Ben (there really is no need for a spoiler alert on that right?) Peter decides to take on a heavy responsibility and use his powers to fight crime. Along with fighting crime, he also has to balance college, a job, and trying to win the girl of his dreams, Mary Jane Watson.
There are a lot of great things about this movie, but by far the strongest aspect is the characters. Opinions will differ, but to me Tobey Maguire is great as Peter Parker and Spider-Man. He brings an earnestness to the role that makes you want to see him succeed. He's just a young man trying to do the right thing, but often times life throws him a curve ball that'll bring him down again. It's these real life problems that make Spider-Man so relatable. I myself can relate to Peter quite a bit, especially Maguire's version. Socially awkward when I was younger, not great with girls, more on the nerdy side (though he's more of a science/physics wiz than me), more of a quiet demeanor, and... an old, seemingly insatiable attraction to redheads. Yeah, it's true. They are my kryptonite and I blame these movies as the catalyst for it.
And speaking of that, there's Kirsten Dunst as Peter's redheaded love interest, Mary Jane Watson. Dunst is pretty good, but out of the leads I'd say she has the weakest performance. There are some great scenes with her though; the most notable of course being the upside-down kiss with Spider-Man. It's also nice to see Peter get more comfortable around her as the film progresses, showing his maturity.
William Dafoe as Norman Osborn/The Green Goblin another part I just have to like. Dafoe goes all out as the villain, giving a fun performance complete with an evil laugh. Norman is also an interesting villain because he basically becomes a villain on accident. His company, Oscorp, is under the risk of losing it's funding to supply materials for the military. Taking matters into his own hands, Norman decides to test an enhancement serum on himself to prove it is ready for use. However, it causes him to go insane and basically creates a Gollum alter-ego. And one of the most interesting parts of the film is the way that the Green Goblin tests Spider-Man. The Goblin gives insight on the consequences of being a superhero to Spider-Man and offers that they join forces. In a hero vs. villain fight there will be collateral damage. This all comes to fruition at the climax where Spider-Man is forced to choose between saving Mary Jane or a group of children. In the words of the Goblin, "Misery, misery, misery, that's what you've chosen." As cheesy as The Green Goblin can come across, he is still a good villain because of how he tests Spider-Man and pushes him to his limits. It's actually reminiscent of how the Joker would test Batman 6 years later in The Dark Knight. The only difference is Goblin doesn't win.
The rest of the cast is good to great. James Franco plays Harry Osborn, Norman's son and Peter's long-time friend. Harry is a jealous character however. He never really received much love from his father, so when Norman shows interest in Peter after meeting him, this makes even more frustrated. Perhaps as a way of revenge, Harry then pursues Mary Jane.
Then there's Rosemary Harris and Cliff Robertson as Aunt May and Uncle Ben. For me, this is how I see these two characters. The younger, attractive Aunt May in Civil War just threw me off. While I'm sure I'll get used to it, Rosemary Harris just plays the role so well I don't know if anyone else will be able to top her. And let's not forget J.K. Simmons as James Johah Jameson. What a perfect casting choice this was. Simmons has to be quick on his verbal feet, and certainly does well. He isn't in the movie for very long, but steals the show when he is.
And now I want to talk about possibly my favorite sequence in the film. That is Uncle Ben's death and Peter's hunt for the killer. This might be my favorite sequence from any super hero movie. The emotions that Peter go through in this scene are truly something to behold. Sadness and tears as he realizes his uncle dies in front of him. Anger and vengeance when he hears where the killer is headed. Fear when he has to swing for the first time. Then back to anger until the gunman falls out the window. This sequence is amazing, and I really wished they had not made Sandman the real killer (which happened to be an accident). It cheapens what this scene originally stood for.
Now for the technical aspects. Sam Raimi's directing style is something I've always liked about his Spider-Man trilogy. This is before the days of the Dark Knight Trilogy or cinematic universes, so there wasn't yet a push for super heroes to be more "gritty" or "dark," nor did these films have to worry about tying in with a larger, loosely regulated story arc. This means that Spider-Man has some directing choices that would probably be considered too cheesy for more modern super hero films. I know, I'm the guy that said, "I'm a sucker for drama, broodiness, darkness, etc.", but Raimi's films are just so much fun to watch. He had his way of filming it and didn't care. Some examples include these: there are a few scenes that show newspaper headlines where the newspaper will spin onto the screen; there are some quick camera movements in the horizontal direction where the background is blurred; and quick closeups to characters' faces. It makes the film seem a little campy, but it's done in a fun way. And one thing that Raimi actually does VERY well is balancing the emotions and moods in the film. The film has plenty of lighthearted moments, but they're usually quick and won't be long before Raimi switches to a more serious tone. There are even a few scenes where they seem to switch instantly, like adding some visual comedy to the action scenes or Norman's, "Oh" before his final fate.
As for the special effects, they haven't all aged the best. Thankfully this movie has a good mix between practical effects and CGI, and the CGI was used sparingly. That being said when it is used it's pretty easy to tell. The scenes with Spider-Man swinging through the city though still look pretty good, and are some of my favorite shots in the movie.
Then there's Danny Elfman's wonderful score. While most score enthusiasts will say that Elfman's score for Batman (1989) is the greatest super hero score, I have to rank Spider-Man higher. The main titles is my favorite super hero theme ever written, and it accompanies one of the most creative opening credit sequences I've ever seen. Then there's the "Revenge" cue, which accompanies the sequence with Uncle Ben's death. I also like the love theme for Peter and Mary Jane. It's not one that gets talked about a lot, but it's a softer theme I've always liked.
Considering the length of this review, I'm sure it's easy to tell I love this movie. It has some flaws like aging special effects and cartoony action sequences, but I still think it holds up. And when you think about it, this is the film (along with the original X-Men) that really started the super hero film craze. While other people would point at Ironman or Batman Begins, X-Men and Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy are the movies that got it taking off, for better or worse. Well, that's it. I'm excited to see Homecoming and to see what Holland brings to the table in a full length movie. We'll see if he can supplant Maguire as my favorite Spider-Man. And remember, "With great power, comes great responsibility.""
Written July 10th, 2017: Spider-Man: Homecoming
"Time to talk about Spider-Man: Homecoming. Marvel has done it again and managed to make an entertaining, crowd pleasing super hero film. This is also definitely the best Spider-Man movie since Spider-Man 2. And I must admit, there are some things it does better. It makes me feel a little conflicted actually, but I'm glad this movie was good. As a result though, I will be making some comparisons to Raimi's films. It's not to take away from what Homecoming accomplishes. It's just because Spider-Man means a lot to me and I think it's fun to point out the differences and what one film may have done better (or worse) than the other. And as good as Homecoming was, there are a few flaws and drawbacks. There is also one story element they completely glossed over that is central to Peter's character development, and in my opinion it was a mistake.
Spider-Man: Homecoming is directed by Jon Watts and stars Tom Holland, Michael Keaton, Robert Downey, Jr., Zendaya Coleman, and Jacob Batalon. The film takes place in the time right after the events of Captain America: Civil War and Peter's involvement at the airport fight in Germany. It focuses on how Peter wants to prove himself ready to become an Avenger and join them on more dangerous missions. However, Stark isn't keen on it and wants Peter to focus on smaller events happening in New York. Stark also has Happy, his head of security, keeping an eye on Peter.
This brings me to the first thing I liked about this film, the scale of the story. Spider-Man in film has always been a hero that's dealt with problems and villains of a smaller scale. A part of that is because New York is such an important part of his identity, so he only deals with problems in New York. There have never been alien invasions, beams in the sky, or robot armies. In fact, Doc Oc's fusion reactor is the closest thing to a world ending event he's dealt with. It's nice to go back to a smaller and lighthearted scale, similar to what Ant-Man did after Age of Ultron.
The acting and characters were also very good and that's always been Marvel's best strength. It also has one of the better Marvel villains we've had in a while. Michael Keaton (who once upon a time wore the cape and cowl as Batman) plays Vulture (Adrian Toomes) and had some decent character development. He is basically an arms dealer dealing in weapons with alien technology. He also has understandable motivations for his actions (which I will not reveal, because one was unexpected). And Keaton's acting is very good. One sequence in particular I really liked is when he's talking to Peter in his vehicle. I won't say anymore than that, but the tension in the scene was handled wonderfully and it was probably my favorite scene in the movie.
Then of course there's Tom Holland. I admit it. Holland is probably the best Spider-Man we've gotten. He's way better than Garfield and manages to carry this movie along very well. Which I must say is very impressive. Holland is 21, and here he is acting with heavyweights like Robert Downey, Jr. and Michael Keaton holding his own. It might not be Oscar worthy, but I applaud Holland for putting on such a strong performance. He manages to be the nerdy high school Peter Parker we're familiar with (unlike Garfield's) and has the quick mouth and funny lines as Spider-Man (which while Maguire had a line here and there, Holland is certainly funnier). I also liked the idea of this movie being a coming of age story. Peter is eager to become an Avenger and feels he's ready, even though he isn't. That's what Tony Stark is trying to get Peter to understand, and it's interesting to watch Stark play the part of a mentor. He's not in the film very much (which is a good thing or the focus on Peter would be lost) and plays more of an aloof mentor, but he does care about what happens to Peter. He also sees some of himself in Peter, and there were some callbacks to the original Ironman film's themes that I really liked. As I said, it's a coming of age story and Peter needs to know what it is to be a hero before he is allowed to truly become one.
The rest of the cast was good as well. Jacob Batalon as Peter's friend Ned Leeds was entertaining to watch. He's a little more of a comic relief character, but it's done smartly and realistically. He also gets the chance to help Spider-Man out and be a sidekick. Downey, Jr. brings it as he always does. Zendaya Coleman plays a sarcastic, non-conformative, intelligent side character named Michelle. While Peter has a different love interest in this film (who happens to be a senior, and he's a sophomore *clap clap*), she seemed to be written to be one later on. I have one slight problem with it though, which I'll get to later.
The directing in this film was also pretty good. The action sequences were entertaining and didn't have camera cuts every 2 seconds. But this is where my problems and comparisons will start. The directing and production of this movie were all well done and competent. But... it feels like the other Marvel films. And I know this is a fine line to walk on. As a director you want, or dare I say even need, your film to have some stylistic qualities so it can stand on its own. Yet at the same time if you go too different fans won't be getting quite what they expected. Captain America: Winter Soldier and Civil War managed to pull this off, with the Russo brothers creating two of the more serious Marvel films we've seen. But ultimately, every one of these directors are subject to what the studio wants. And that's fine, because the majority of these films are good to great. But it also means there aren't as many risks taken, which ironically could become the biggest problem for the MCU. I wanted to see Captain America die in Civil War. Not because I hate his character, but it would have made for a more powerful story and ending. That's one thing that Raimi's movies have over this one. Raimi's style is all over them, and things were good until the studio forced Venom on him for Spider-Man 3 (he had no intention of using Venom yet). I know I'm probably in the minority here, but I want to see Marvel take more risks. Heck, I was expecting Loki to die in Thor: Ragnorak: until I read a story that he might be in Infinity Wars. And taking risks doesn't just have to be killing off characters; it can also be trying different genres (like Logan being a pseudo-western) or more diverse directing styles (like Raimi's more cartoony, but earnest style). This is something I'm directing towards Marvel as a whole, and not just Homecoming.
The score was composed by Michael Giacchino, who seems to be the new go-to composer for the MCU since Brian Tyler was let go. Giacchino's score was pretty good. It actually had a theme I could remember walking out of the film, and I liked his use of pizzicato to mirror the crawling of a spider. However, it isn't as good as Danny Elfman's score.
Going back to the actions sequences in Homecoming, they were fun and entertaining. But this is one area where I give the Raimi films the advantage. The splitting ship scene and the final fight with Vulture are probably the two best action sequences, and I really liked them. But compared to the train fight with Doc Oc, the final confrontation with Green Goblin when the Goblin makes him choose and ends up beating the tar out of Spider-Man, or the revenge sequence when Peter is going after his uncle's killer, they just don't feel like they have as much at stake.
Which brings me to my biggest problem with the movie in terms of the storyline. They completely glossed over Uncle Ben's death. Now, I understand a lot of people didn't need to see Uncle Ben die again or get the "With great power, comes great responsibility" speech. But completely omitting them is a big mistake, because his Uncle Ben's death is the defining moment that makes Peter turn into Spider-Man in the first place. I think there's one line where Peter talks about his Aunt May going through some tough times, but it moves on from that very quickly. And even if they did mention him and I missed it, it's still a plot point that should have been in there somewhere.
Another smaller part that got me was Zendaya's character, Michelle. She apparently will also answer to MJ... And all I can think is: MJ means Mary Jane, and Mary Jane Watson is supposed to be a white, redheaded girl. I'm sorry but this Michelle being the new MJ doesn't work for me.
EDIT: I read an article after I wrote this and this criticism is unwarranted. They called her MJ as a homage to Mary Jane, and she isn't associated or meant to be a replacement for Mary Jane. My mistake.
And I just realized that there was no Harry Osborne either. Maybe they'll introduce him later, but he was another integral part in shaping Peter's character.
But overall, this was a good movie. Spider-Man: Homecoming is again the best Spider-Man movie since Spider-Man 2. The performances were good, Keaton made a very good villain, and Holland makes a great Spider-Man. It's a crowd pleasing movie with a good script, and it connects with the Avengers universe quite well and smartly. The biggest problem with this movie is that it just doesn't quite stand on its own. It's a good movie, but it's a "safe" movie."