Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter T Chattaway

Spider-Man: Homecoming

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Anders said:

I thought the love interest was supposed to be Mary Jane?

According to Wikipedia, she is Liz Allan.

Also, apparently Shocker is in this as a villain alongside the Vulture. I totally missed that in the trailer.

Edited by winter shaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anders   

I remember there was talk of casting a POC in the role as Mary Jane. A bit annoyed they seemed to have backed off that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, winter shaker said:

I suppose they are based on already existing characters, but Peter's friend and new love interest are characters we haven't seen in previous films.

Well at first I thought the guy was Ganke Lee a character that actually appears in the Miles Morales Spiderman comics as his best friend, but the character while looking like Lee is actually named Ned Leeds a very different character from the earliest Spiderman comics who was one of his reporter friends. so it looks like they are blending characters a bit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Anders said:

I remember there was talk of casting a POC in the role as Mary Jane. A bit annoyed they seemed to have backed off that. 

Well they did change the original ethnicity of Liz Allan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anders wrote:
: I remember there was talk of casting a POC in the role as Mary Jane. A bit annoyed they seemed to have backed off that. 

Did they actually back off that, or were the rumours simply wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NBooth   

This is actually less impressive than some of the earlier teasers:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anders   
3 hours ago, NBooth said:

This is actually less impressive than some of the earlier teasers:

 

Yeah, too much RDJ, too much confusing-looking action, I'm not especially jazzed. And I love Spider-Man! Sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NBooth   
24 minutes ago, Anders said:

Yeah, too much RDJ, too much confusing-looking action, I'm not especially jazzed. And I love Spider-Man! Sad.

It really makes me miss the Raimi incarnation of the franchise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew   

Sigh...more exploding monuments, holding separating objects together with webs, silly antagonism between superheroes...been there, done that too many times now.  I don't know that I'll even see this one as a rental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do sorta like the conception of The Vulture as anti-Iron Man, and also it's interesting seeing Stark try to take on a father figure role in his clumsy overprotective way. It also shows the web thing doesn't really work what with him needing Iron Man to push the pieces together. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anders   

I don't know why, but given he was BATMAN and has been doing quite well in his career lately, it feels like the role of Vulture is beneath Michael Keaton's talents. That said, I guess this shows how "prestigious" or in demand roles in the MCU are. It sucks everything into its maw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have said this before, but I can remember quibbling with the fact that the Sam Raimi trilogy made *such* a big deal of Peter Parker's tight finances that it always bothered me that Parker had such a swanky and clearly expensive Spider-Man suit -- so it pleases me somewhat to see that the new Spider-Man series has an in-universe explanation for the suit: it was financed by Tony Stark!

I m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NBooth   

Well, this movie doesn't have the heart of the Raimi films, but it does have Michael Keaton giving his best-ever performance as a Birdman and Tom Holland being as charming and enthusiastic as in Civil War, so I'll call it even. My favorite part of the movie, actually, occurs toward the end and is a close facsimile of a scene in the first Spider-Man. 

Curiously, though, I couldn't help but notice how claustrophobic this movie feels compared to the Raimi flicks. Ironically, I think it's because this Spider-man is part of the MCU. As a result, where Raimi worked to anchor his movies in the texture of New York City and make them feel like they could be occurring in the real world, this movie is content with sticking Peter Parker into the plastic world of The Avengers. So, even though the action is bigger and the animation more lifelike, the movie feels generally closed-in. Similarly--and this is what I mean by "heart"--the characters don't seem to have the emotional vitality that Raimi gave them. Even when Peter should be upset, late in the movie, he seems merely a little piqued. Which, y'know, is very MCU. But it makes the movie poorer and less likely to stay in the memory.

Still, though. It didn't make me mad (Civil War) or feel like it squandered its setup (Guardians 2), so it's generally a win.

EDIT: Nothing in the movie is a patch on this, though: 

 

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One other annoyance: the way the film tries to signal its wokeness from the opening scene, where Michael Keaton says he used to read "Cowboys & Indians" comics and his employee says -- unrealistically, given the context -- "You're supposed to say Native Americans." (I was reminded of kenmorefield's gripe about the way Key & Peele kinda-sorta lecture the audience on the reasons for not using the n-word in Keanu, instead of just *using* the word in a way that pushes our buttons the way that, say, Richard Pryor did. See also Baywatch -- or at least the trailer for the film (I haven't seen the film itself) -- where Zac Efron takes offense at the term "you people" and Dwayne Johnson tells him he's not allowed to take offense at it. The audience isn't trusted to get the joke, or the reference; the audience has to be schooled on the correct boundaries for correct speech in the 21st century.)

There's another scene where Michelle (who says she wants to take part in some "light protesting" outside some embassies while she's in Washington, DC) says the Washington Monument was built by slaves, and a guard at the monument signals his agreement, and... apparently, the historical evidence around this claim isn't quite the slam-dunk that Michelle (and, through her, the film) seems to indicate. Slate notes that only the first 150 feet of the monument were built prior to the Civil War, and it quotes Jesse Holland (Black Men Built the Capitol) to the effect that "There has not been any clear evidence found to prove that slaves were used in the construction of the Washington Monument: no receipts, no log entries, no newspaper stories. We have all of those proving the use of slave construction on the U.S. Capitol and the White House. But we have yet to discover irrefutable evidence that slaves were used in the construction of the Washington Monument," though he also notes that DC was a slave city "and accustomed to the use of slave labor on major building projects". (Would Michelle refuse to enter the U.S. Capitol or the White House?) Meanwhile, Vulture quotes John Steele Gordon (Washington’s Monument and the Fascinating History of the Obelisk) to the effect that " the stonemasonry was pretty highly skilled, so it’s unlikely that slaves would’ve been doing it . . . The stones were cut by stonecutters, which is highly skilled work; and the stones were hoisted by means of steam engines, so you’d need a skilled engineer and foreman for stuff like that. Tending the steam engine, building the cast-iron staircase inside — that wasn’t grunt work," though he also notes that "The early quarries were in Maryland, so slave labor was undoubtedly used to quarry and haul the stone."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evan C   

I agree with Film Crit Hulk's take wholeheartedly, both in terms of its strengths and weaknesses, and especially about how it suffers from the "Marvel fatal flaw."

I think my biggest problem was the first hour was basically a repetition of the same idea: Peter want's to be on the Avengers, so he blows off his friends and chances to do anything at school, over and over and over and over and over again. Honestly, I felt at least half an hour could have been cut without any real loss.

As regards Keaton's line about "Native Americans," I believe the preferred term has actually gone back to being American Indians, because Native Americans more accurately refers to the Inuit, or that's what I was told by scholars studying music traditions of American Indians, so in addition to the line not making sense in context, it was dating itself as well.

The one scene that really stuck out to me as pointless and out of place was the gym scene where the three girls are playing Marry, F*ck, or Murder with members of the Avengers. I'm sure high-schoolers play that parlor game, but I'm equally sure that the high-schoolers who do don't censor the f-word when they play it, which of course had to be done to keep a PG-13 rating. And since that's the case, why script it in the first place?

And speaking of needless crudity, I'm sure every middle-schooler with the name Peter is really going to hate the film, or at least the party scene at Liz's.

On the plus side, Keaton is one of the best Marvel villains, the tie into Civil War was well done, and Holland is a very likeable Peter and Spiderman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evan C wrote:
: As regards Keaton's line about "Native Americans," I believe the preferred term has actually gone back to being American Indians, because Native Americans more accurately refers to the Inuit, or that's what I was told by scholars studying music traditions of American Indians, so in addition to the line not making sense in context, it was dating itself as well.

I think the Canadian government now uses "Indigenous" as a catch-all term for First Nations, Inuit and Metis. But no one ever looks back to their childhoods in the 1960s and talks about playing "Cowboys and First Nations", y'know?

: The one scene that really stuck out to me as pointless and out of place was the gym scene where the three girls are playing Marry, F*ck, or Murder with members of the Avengers.

Right! I'd almost forgotten about that scene.

: And speaking of needless crudity, I'm sure every middle-schooler with the name Peter is really going to hate the film, or at least the party scene at Liz's.

And that was the *second* scene in which Flash calls Peter that. (He did it earlier when he drove by in the car, at school.)

: On the plus side, Keaton is one of the best Marvel villains . . .

Indeed.

: . . . the tie into Civil War was well done, and Holland is a very likeable Peter and Spiderman.

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×