Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

titan18

MilesMorales1 wrote:

Definitely stay for the second post credits scene. Super important.

Damn you.

MilesMorales1

titan18 wrote: »

Damn you.

Patience is an important virtue.

johnny_ultimate

Simultaneously the most endearingly low-stakes superhero film in a long-time and a disheartening reminder of the limits of the modern day superhero blockbuster.

When this is the story of Peter Parker being a goofy high school student and even goofier superhero, this is good fun. Let's not pretend it's in the upper pantheon of 'teenage' movies or anything - this is rudimentary stuff. But it's silly, light-footed and with moments of genuine warmth. I liked the smaller-scale setpieces such as the suburbs chase, or the early 'friendly neighbourhood Spiderman' montage - it made me want to watch a full film about the humdrum daily life of a super-powered teen. The

two scenes before homecoming are a pleasure to watch - a fun way of combining the two reasonably disparate narrative threads into a tense, playful encounter between protagonist and antagonist.

.

A damn shame then that the demands of a modern superhero movie get in the way. This film would have been stronger with a zero shaved off its budget - that would have forced the filmmakers focus on the lower-stakes stuff the film is best at. But alas: this is an extended universe film, and the big setpieces constantly get in the way. This is especially true of its incredibly weak final showdown -

a mid-air brawl on an 'invisible' airplane and subsequent dramatic crash

sees the film die an instant death, that a few playful moments in the epilogue can only do so much to recover from (the aggressive, tedious fan service doesn't help). It's loud, it's dull, and it's at complete odds with the rest of the film. Surely there was a way to come up with a more localised, memorable climax - it's the sort of film that feels like it would benefit IMMENSELY from something like, say, the iconic 'Enchantment Under the Sea' sequences in BttF where the high personal stakes play out in a relatively small space.

This blandly directed, visually drab film doesn't have the chops to sell the epic yet familiar setpieces it scatters throughout - but worse than that, they feel at odds with the film it wants to be. Homecoming has six screenwriters, and tragically it shows in yet another broadly promising superhero film that feels neutered by a committee (the intrusive Marvel roster cameos don't really help in that regard, but at least a few feel reasonably well embedded in the overall narrative). A shame too that most of the talented supporting cast aren't given much space to do what they do. I also confess to being unreasonably irritated that the film has two prologues before it gets going - a strange pace-killer before things even kick off proper!

I stress that this is particularly disappointing because in some ways this is the most enjoyable of these films I've seen since the first batch (Thor etc...), before everything got weighed down with interconnectedness and stylistic and/or structural uniformity. It feels character driven in a way the ensemble ones can't, and it feels like a genuine, affectionate representation of the character (probably the only Marvel hero I have any lingering nostalgic affection for). It is, despite its flaws, a notable improvement over the Garfield stuff. Holland and Zendaya are talented youngsters, and Keaton's character is a refreshingly grounded (well, technically airbound, but you know what I mean) super villain. There's a little Freaks & Geeks in there, even - no surprise some of its alumni enjoy credits here.

But ultimately it's a film that never seems able to be exactly the film it regularly threatens to be - another Marvel joint that comes close to being comfortable in its own skin, but once again the demands of fitting into an 'extended universe' get in the way.

S.M.B.

I would have loved if they refrained from resorting to the big SFX heavy climactic battle but I would have been stunned if they went with something much smaller in scale.

constitutionus

went again last night with the bro and best mate.

better if anything the second time around as i caught easter eggs i missed the first time around (the photograph and medals in the principles office for instance)

plus i have to admit to being smug as hell thinking "wait till they see where this goes" at a certain part of the film.

ricero

Thought it would of been better considering all the fan fare around it.

A solid 7 out of 10 from me. Much preferred wonder woman if being honest. Thought tom holland and keaton were very good. Look forward to seeing where they go with the story next

AMKC

So seen this today with the bro and would only give it a 5 out of then. Maybe that just me and the bro do. Heres some of my thoughts on it.
I don,t think it was as good as the Topey Maguire Spiderman films. Its very like Deadpool in some of its ways but not as good as it can,t be as dark. I agree that Wonder Women was a far better film. There was not even much story development going on in this new Spiderman film and when you look at it actually very little happened and so many parts were very practicable. I also thought it was too long. They could have cut maybe 20mins. Tony Stark is it it far too much as well. The one good thing about it was it had plenty of humour. maybe that just me but I think a lot of people that were in the cinema I was in thought the same and were disappointed with it coming out of it. I think maybe the younger generation teens and early 20s might like it more.

I did not catch all the trailers before just seen Star Wars and Black Panter which looks interesting. The reason I am saying is because I was wondering did anyone see a trailer before this that would have been well unexpected and also its not a movie.

gmisk

AMKC wrote: »

Tony Stark is it it far too much as well..

I would disagree with this tbh id say on screen time was probably well under 10 minutes? There was a lot of the Happy character though (Jon Favreau) (who tbh seemed a bit bored and was one of the few week points for me).
I personally think its the best spiderman film since spiderman 2, and a big improvement over the 2 Andrew Garfield ones.

Optimalprimerib

Until reading johnny_ultimate's review, I forgot about the climatic battle, proving it was a little forgettable.

Other than that I found it nice and enjoyable. The vulture as the bad guy is weirdly one of the most realistic I've seen and fit into the universe perfectly. Keaton had and air of menace about him. Also anytime I see vaas from farcry 3, I have a little nerdgasm. He really deserves bigger roles.

When ever I see Happy, I feel that it is like marvel sneering at Jon favreu, demoting his character to more mundane jobs. He was the director when this universe kicked off and was removed from duty after the poor ironman 2. Maybe he is in on the joke, he is still a talented director.

Nerdlingr

Hadnt read much, if very little, about the film and tried to stay away from trailers as much as possible. However I did see the poster for it...and it was a little bit spoilery as regards to

the actress that plays MJ...zendaya? There she was front and centre of the poster. So throughout the film i was thinking..what's her deal?, obviously something's going to happen with her and when the reveal did come it was a little bit spoiled by the poster to be honest.

I thought the film itself was ok. Think i still prefer the first tobey maguire one. Holland is pretty good, Keaton is excellent as always...pity we didnt get a more menacing vibe a bit more in the film. That homecoming/house/car scene was excellent and if they could have worked a bit more of that into the film and maybe less iron man I think it would have been better for it. There were jokes aplenty..which is grand...but did it try to be tooo funny? I dunno. I enjoyed it more than WW but it hasnt really broken any new ground so I'd have to rate it a sold 6.5 /10.

FunLover18

The cinematic universe podcast have done an excellent episode on this movie. The guys really know their comics and they always make some really interesting points even if I don't always agree with them. I'd definitely recommend it and if you enjoy it, they have a whole back catalogue where they cover other comic book movies.

Only in a Spiderman movie can a grown man called Happy meet a teenage boy in the toilets of a high-school in secret and it be considered totally OK.

constitutionus

been on a bit of a spidey kick since the film and heard one of the reviewers (double toasted lads) reference some test footage from the original 02 raimi film on the green goblin

how the fup did they go with what they did after seeing this ?

if they bring him into the new films i HOPE they go this route next time around as its absolutely terrifying.

fluke

constitutionus wrote: »

been on a bit of a spidey kick since the film and heard one of the reviewers (double toasted lads) reference some test footage from the original 02 raimi film on the green goblin

how the fup did they go with what they did after seeing this ?

if they bring him into the new films i HOPE they go this route next time around as its absolutely terrifying.

That is amazing and a really good find! This is easily the way to go. None of the power rangers mask crap that the went with, or whatever mopey emo thing they tried in the Garfield sequel.

Penn

I think it was Kevin Smith who described Green Goblin and Spider-Man's rooftop discussion in Spider-Man 1 as being like watching two action figures on strings because they both had full masks that show off no expression whatsoever.

alchemist33

alchemist33 wrote: »

I really hope we won't have to sit through the same origin story yet again.

Phew! And it was all the better for it. The film really benefitted from a well-drawn villain too.

alchemist33

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

Patience is an important virtue.

Oh ffs. We stayed and stayed until they put the lights on, then left. We only saw one scene.

FunLover18

alchemist33 wrote:

Oh ffs. We stayed and stayed until they put the lights on, then left. We only saw one scene.

There are definitely supposed to be two

alchemist33

FunLover18 wrote: »

There are definitely supposed to be two

Tis okay. I've read up on what it was now, and frankly, getting junior to the toilets was more important

Nervous Wreck

Penn wrote: »

I think it was Kevin Smith who described Green Goblin and Spider-Man's rooftop discussion in Spider-Man 1 as being like watching two action figures on strings because they both had full masks that show off no expression whatsoever.

Have to agree with him but not just cos of the masks. Spider-man was just sitting there on the ground with GG in front of him. If they'd at least been doing something...

El Duda

Spider-Man: Homecoming - 10/10

I absolutely loved this from start to finish. I had a big cheesy grin on my face for the majority. I'm struggling to think of any elements I didn't like about it.

The casting is interesting and a bit risky which pays off. Keaton's Vulture is the best Marvel villain since Hiddlestone's Loki. The supporting cast are great, especially Peter Parker's best mate. RDJ returns to the snarky Tony Stark we all love after his emotional arc in Civil war.

Toby Maguire was a decent Parker and a terrible Spider Man. Garfield was a poor Parker but a decent Spider Man.
Tom Holland IS both Peter Parker AND Spider Man. He literally IS him. Perfection.

I loved the way they fleshed out Keaton's character and gave him real motivation and purpose. They also kept his 'master plan' low key and it very much felt right for the MCU.

All the little tie-ins with previous MCU films are great. This is the best example of Marvel paying close attention to detail and cherry-picking things that really work and incorporating them into the film. It doesn't feel at all shoe horned in unlike, for example, the Falcon fight in Ant-Man.

With this and Guardians 2 earlier this year, Marvel have produced the two best comedies of the year so far. Judging from the Ragnarok trailer I think they'll end up with three fantastic films out this year.

This is the perfect Marvel film. Straight into the top tier of comic book films and easily the best iteration of the web slinger we've seen thus far.

pixelburp

A refreshing change of pace for the Marvel films, one that felt like the franchise was taking something of a breather, while remembering to include the kind of street-heroics that was hitherto the domain of Netflix. No glowing blue beams shooting into the sky, no world-ending catastrophes or urban destruction: Homecoming focused on the 'neighbourhood' part of 'friendly neighbourhood Spider Man', keeping Peter Parker grounded and away from the skyscrapers and rooftops once seen in Sam Raimi's idealised version of New York. The villains too were a palette cleanser, merely opportunistic weapons-sellers headed by Michael Keaton, growling with underplayed menace. Honestly they were no better sketched than any other antagonist up 'til now, but their intentions felt earned and vaguely understandable; the actual

'homecoming'

scene was the highlight, and arguably the strongest hero/villain scene in any of the recent Marvel features - no CGI, just implied danger.

If anything, Homecoming highlighted the main strengths of the the studios franchise overall - as well as its key weaknesses. So while the humour, charisma & characterisation felt as on-point and eminently enjoyable as always, and its cast a universal treat (Ned & Peter forming a brilliant rapport), it was still a film without a single nuance or directorial flourish to call its own. Beyond continuing to show a knack for directing younger voices, Jon Watts filmed Homecoming with all the vibrancy of a tax audit. The end-credits were the most stark demonstration of this: while they were a fun & stylish papercut montage, all set to punk-rock music, it jarred with the flat compositions and washed-out palette of the actual movie - the staple palette of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Equally, the final set-piece was a contradictory mess, jettisoning the small-scale set pieces for grandiose noise, presumably the compromise for all the downplayed, suburban adventure up to that point.

That's not intended to sound too harsh mind you; Homecoming was still fun, breezy and immediately overtook all previous Sony-helmed attempts at a cinematic wall-crawler; I just wish Guardians of the Galaxy wasn't the only Marvel film allowed to have a bit of visual flair or individuality in its approach.

Ben Gadot

fluke wrote: »

That is amazing and a really good find! This is easily the way to go. None of the power rangers mask crap that the went with, or whatever mopey emo thing they tried in the Garfield sequel.

I think the next possible iteration of GG will be ultimate inspired. It will be a literal transformation.

TASM2 flirted with that kind of interpretation but just ended up giving us a monstrosity that screamed uncertainty in its portrayal.

Turtyturd

Just back from this and I thoroughly enjoyed it. There where some parts that veered into Ultimate Spider-man territory, especially with cheesy dialogue but for the most part it hit all the right note. Probably the best Marvel film for me although the competition is up to much imo.

Assumed throughout the the whole movie that Liz was actually Liz Allen so

the reveal of her as Toome's daughter was a nice little surprise. Also surprised to see Gargan show back up in the post credits scene, was fairly sure he wouldn't be back until the sequel.

Basq

Decent without being in the top tier of Marvel movies.. but as standalone movies go, it was pretty damn good and probably better than Ant Man.

Michelle (Zendaya) stole every scene she was in, as did Martin Starr's character. Keaton and Holland were both good.

Homecoming

scene was excellent but I do think the movie was let down by being slightly childish at points (maybe it's the Deadpool/Logan effect in recent months) and also tiresome dialogue.

Still - very worthwhile effort from Marvel.

gmisk

OSI wrote: »

Doctor Strange?

Visual flair defo....but story wise it was pretty much the same as Iron Man i thought tbh

pixelburp

OSI wrote: »

Doctor Strange?

Subtract the psychedelic magic FX and Dr. Strange was the MCUs most overtly rote & cookie-cutter movie yet produced, sticking to Origin Story 101 to the letter; even though it was a film all about magic & time manipulation, it couldn't raise itself to at least play with audience expectations or story structure. It was a shockingly lazy, uninspired film, peppered with showreels for FX companies. It was like something Sony would have made

PerrinV2

Am I the only one that didn't like Zendaya's character?

Every scene apart from her final reveal scence and her saving the day at the decathlon,he was just there making snarky remarks either while there practicing for the decathlon,or she was sitting in detention for no reason only to draw someone's saddness,protesting outside some building while the rest went up in the elevator,some remark she said to guys at the party(I actually don't remember that,migntn't have been bad).

Well I just found her irritating but thats just me,I guess....I didn't get much sleep

waterlepe

I haven't watched the movie yet because of my busy schedule.  I'll do it this weekend.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2250912/

Beefy78

PerrinV2 wrote: »

Am I the only one that didn't like Zendaya's character?

Every scene apart from her final reveal scence and her saving the day at the decathlon,he was just there making snarky remarks either while there practicing for the decathlon,or she was sitting in detention for no reason only to draw someone's saddness,protesting outside some building while the rest went up in the elevator,some remark she said to guys at the party(I actually don't remember that,migntn't have been bad).

Well I just found her irritating but thats just me,I guess....I didn't get much sleep

I liked her, but I completely guessed the reveal after her second or third scene.

Turtyturd

Was there any 'reveal' given the big deal made about her casting?

Agree with the people who didn't like the character though. Nearly every time she spoke had a kind of breaking the fourth wall feel which was completely at odds with what was going on in the movie.

MilesMorales1

Well she (the actor) said multiple times before the film came out 'I am not playing that character' even though everyone and their dog guessed thats who she was.

fluke

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

Well she (the actor) said multiple times before the film came out 'I am not playing that character' even though everyone and their dog guessed thats who she was.

Well I guess, like Benedict Cumbersome in STID, she can't say yeah, yeah I am.

Nice username btw.

constitutionus

the weird thing about her to me was first time around i liked her sarky character.

second time around i couldnt help thinking "this girls a stalker!"

chrislad

Meh-vel, rather than Marvel, though that seems to be the trend with most of their movies for me for a while. I enjoy them, to some degree, but the formula is just gone from fresh to stale by this stage. Thor:Ragnorok does look like it may be a radical change from Thors 1 and 2, but it seems like it's just borrowing the GotG template instead.

Stone Deaf 4evr

chrislad wrote: »

Meh-vel, rather than Marvel, though that seems to be the trend with most of their movies for me for a while. I enjoy them, to some degree, but the formula is just gone from fresh to stale by this stage. Thor:Ragnorok does look like it may be a radical change from Thors 1 and 2, but it seems like it's just borrowing the GotG template instead.

Funnily enough, i rewatched thor: the Dark world over the weekend, and I was struck by how tonally in tune it is with guardians of the galaxy, its skewsfar more heavily in the sci-fi direction than the mythological, something I didnt appreciate on viewing it in the cinema at release.

Corholio

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

Funnily enough, i rewatched thor: the Dark world over the weekend, and I was struck by how tonally in tune it is with guardians of the galaxy, its skewsfar more heavily in the sci-fi direction than the mythological, something I didnt appreciate on viewing it in the cinema at release.

I liked Thor 2, more than some people perhaps. It suffered from a poor villain, as is par for the course from Marvel most of the time. but I enjoyed the story elements. Ecclestone was pretty good with what he was given and it's one of the villains I really would have liked them to have gone further with.

Temptamperu

Really excellent Spiderman. Tom Holland is awesome, everyone is great... except Flash Thompson.

Nervous Wreck

Saw this again today. It's such a high point for the MCU in practically every way.

Psychologeeee

Film had bundles of FUN which feels like a bit of a rarity in movies these days!

Brief_Lives

Just saw it in Spain.. Released yesterday..
Great movie..
"Drone y"... New favourite word..

Zendaya... Kinda annoying..

BopNiblets

Penn wrote: »

I think it was Kevin Smith who described Green Goblin and Spider-Man's rooftop discussion in Spider-Man 1 as being like watching two action figures on strings because they both had full masks that show off no expression whatsoever.

Not to mention it's hard not to laugh at green goblin being run though his crotch by his own glider...

artvanderlay

Just saw this today and it was quite fun. I do not like any of those Avengers movies, nor Captain America/Thor..., but I do like X-men, Spider-man and to a lesser extent Iron Man; those movies have some humour in them, which I like, and come on, they are based on comic books, not religious texts, and should have some humour, in my opinion.

Anyways, this movie was light and moved fairly briskly. Only gripe was the love interest was 17 going on 30! Silly casting. Also while I appreciate that the bad guy is not some alien/or destroyer of worlds, maybe he was too low-key...the final confrontation was a non-event.

Anyways, decent...6.5/10

The Golden Miller

Seen this film twice and it's a great film on it's own merits. Although it simply isn't a patch on the first two Raimi films. He's too young and Spider-man was never one of these hipster nerds as we got with Garfield or a quirky nerd as we got with the current incarnation. He was a straight up nerd, who became more casual as he got older. It will and is suffering at the box office relatively speaking as it comes accross more as a kids film as opposed to an adult film like the first 2. It just didn't really feel like Spider-man for me. The first two were perfect, everything felt right. Pity about the 3rd, could have been brilliant if they left Venom for the 4th film

Tazzimus

The Golden Miller wrote: »

He's too young and Spider-man was never one of these hipster nerds as we got with Garfield or a quirky nerd as we got with the current incarnation. He was a straight up nerd, who became more casual as he got older.

Spiderman is supposed to be young though.. He's the kid in the group.

Age wise I actually think they nailed it, instead of having someone in their 30's pretending to be a teenager. If he had the same wit as Garfields version, it'd be pretty much perfect IMO.

The Golden Miller

Tazzimus wrote: »

Spiderman is supposed to be young though.. He's the kid in the group.

Age wise I actually think they nailed it, instead of having someone in their 30's pretending to be a teenager. If he had the same wit as Garfields version, it'd be pretty much perfect IMO.

Well yes young, but never that young if I remember correctly. Well it's a long time since I used to read the old Amazing Spider-man reprints of the originals so I could be wrong. Even if he was that young, he always came accross as being older than his years, in personality and appearance. Never really came accross as a kid in the comics imo, and was never really treated as a kid by the Fantastic Four or any of the other heroes. It all seems very kiddie in the films, the way he acts, looks and is treated by the others

Nervous Wreck

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Well yes young, but never that young if I remember correctly. Well it's a long time since I used to read the old Amazing Spider-man reprints of the originals so I could be wrong. Even if he was that young, he always came accross as being older than his years, in personality and appearance. Never really came accross as a kid in the comics imo, and was never really treated as a kid by the Fantastic Four

You are wrong yes. I agree he did look older than he was in the early days but that's partly down to the fashion in the 60s etc. And he's always been beyond his years in terms of his dealing with responsibilities while being incredibly immature at the same time. That continues even in the most recent storylines where he's a billionaire CEO (if you haven't read them, don't).

MilesMorales1

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

You are wrong yes. I agree he did look older than he was in the early days but that's partly down to the fashion in the 60s etc. And he's always been beyond his years in terms of his dealing with responsibilities while being incredibly immature at the same time. That continues even in the most recent storylines where he's a billionaire CEO (if you haven't read them, don't).

Aren't they changing that now? I haven't been keeping up with the most recent stuff.

Nervous Wreck

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

Aren't they changing that now? I haven't been keeping up with the most recent stuff.

I don't know tbh, I can't read it with him being a billionaire. Tbh, I haven't read ASM regularly since Dan Slott took over (excepting Superior Spider-man and Spiderverse, which are arguably part of the main ASM canon). But I hope you're right. I hope they remove the billionaire status and Dan Slott from the book.

The Golden Miller

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

You are wrong yes. I agree he did look older than he was in the early days but that's partly down to the fashion in the 60s etc. And he's always been beyond his years in terms of his dealing with responsibilities while being incredibly immature at the same time. That continues even in the most recent storylines where he's a billionaire CEO (if you haven't read them, don't).

I have read quite a few of them unfortunately, and they were a slog to get through. I stopped reading them circa amazing Spider-man 580 and sporadically inbetween. Started reading them against during the Superior Spider-man arc but lost interest half way through. Slott is fairly rubbish tbh and the whole thing has become a bore. Straczynski's run was the last I really enjoyed. It has been all downhill since One More Day/Brand New Day.

I dunno, I guess I just take point with alot of people trying to make out that the current Holland Peter Parker is the version most true to the comics and the way the character is supposed to be. Parker didn't stay that age in the comics that long, nor looked or acted anything like the way Holland's Parker does. The version of Peter Parker that we all think of is a little bit older. It all feels very kiddie to me but I accept they had to come at it from a different angle this time