Re: Spider-Man: Homecoming
As for your spoiler,
Saw it and loved it. I thought with Marvel's attempt they were going to "force" too much of the lightness that the SM character carries, but none of it felt forced at all (I thought it seemed only slightly out of place in Civil War). It all felt like a kid with super powers, which is exactly what this is of course. Tom Holland is Peter Parker, no question about it. Kid really nailed his performance.
Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2 still takes the top billing for me, though. I thought that Peter's "disturbances" in that film were less forgiving by other characters than they are here, which built the drama between Peter and MJ or Peter and Harry that much more. This one obviously had moments to point at, but it seemed like they didn't carry much weight until somebody would finally bring it up eight scenes later (Liz, May, Tony, etc.).
Vulture was not my favorite villain, but he served this Marvel world well and Keaton's portrayal of the Adrian character was simply a force not to be reckoned with. I thought he was awesome, and it was really great to actually start with him. That being said, outside of Loki he is probably my favorite villain in the MCU (if the Winter Soldier doesn't count) because they simply haven't developed any other villains very well at all. However, as far as Spider-Man cinematic villains go, Dr. Octopus obviously takes the top billing for me.
This film is hilarious. I was dying laughing at certain scenes that I feel nobody else in the audience was laughing at, and I don't know why. Even parts near the end of the film had me in stitches (I think people know what I'm talking about). There were even things that I knew for sure characters were going to say, and when they delivered those lines that didn't make them any less hilarious. Zendaya probably had the funniest character of all.
Part of the hilarity of the film came from questions I always had like: "What if he flubbed a web-shooting?" or "What if he didn't have a building to sling from?" or "What if he ran out of webbing?" or "How does he equip his suit properly?" or "Does he have limits/fears of going too high?" I'm just glad they were aware of things like this and actually integrated them into part of the overall story.
I missed out on the 3D version, but honestly after watching it I'm not really sure what I'm missing out on (except maybe the monument scene). I thought some of the action shots were piss-poor to begin with and it was hard to see what was going on, and it would just make it harder in 3D. Not to mention a lot of it is nighttime action. I think I'm good holding off on the 3D stuff. On that note, in 2017 I thought the CGI stuff on long shots of Spider-Man flipping would look more realistic these days, but I guess this is the best that we'll get. I was somewhat unimpressed with the visuals of this film, so I'm glad that the story and characters made up for all of that.
If you are going into this film without seeing any of the other Marvel universe films, I'd recommend you watch The Avengers and Captain America: Civil War first (maybe even Iron Man if you're really pushing films to see). The reason I say all of this is because I'm going to tell my little sister that I saw this and liked it, and she'd ask if I should recommend it to her, to which point I'd probably say yes... but she hasn't seen those other films first. And honestly, as good as this film is, I think it only works best as it fits within the universe.
I'm not saying that this film can't be appreciated without seeing the others, but I think the others serve equally as good of cinematic value as this one. Why should someone see this film before Civil War? What greater purpose does that serve? Getting your Spider-Man fill? I guess, but then I think you're missing the larger picture. That's probably why I like SM2 the most; in the comic book movie lore, it serves as a piece of standalone art so well for me, that it's doing more than just adding to the painting. Same with something like The Dark Knight, and Logan.
I'll of course be adding this to the Blu-ray collection, and frankly with the way this film ended, I can't wait for the next time he shows up in a Marvel film, or his next standalone film.
Now, I have a timeline question I couldn't piece together. Maybe someone can answer it for me?
Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 2 still takes the top billing for me, though. I thought that Peter's "disturbances" in that film were less forgiving by other characters than they are here, which built the drama between Peter and MJ or Peter and Harry that much more. This one obviously had moments to point at, but it seemed like they didn't carry much weight until somebody would finally bring it up eight scenes later (Liz, May, Tony, etc.).
Vulture was not my favorite villain, but he served this Marvel world well and Keaton's portrayal of the Adrian character was simply a force not to be reckoned with. I thought he was awesome, and it was really great to actually start with him. That being said, outside of Loki he is probably my favorite villain in the MCU (if the Winter Soldier doesn't count) because they simply haven't developed any other villains very well at all. However, as far as Spider-Man cinematic villains go, Dr. Octopus obviously takes the top billing for me.
This film is hilarious. I was dying laughing at certain scenes that I feel nobody else in the audience was laughing at, and I don't know why. Even parts near the end of the film had me in stitches (I think people know what I'm talking about). There were even things that I knew for sure characters were going to say, and when they delivered those lines that didn't make them any less hilarious. Zendaya probably had the funniest character of all.
Part of the hilarity of the film came from questions I always had like: "What if he flubbed a web-shooting?" or "What if he didn't have a building to sling from?" or "What if he ran out of webbing?" or "How does he equip his suit properly?" or "Does he have limits/fears of going too high?" I'm just glad they were aware of things like this and actually integrated them into part of the overall story.
I missed out on the 3D version, but honestly after watching it I'm not really sure what I'm missing out on (except maybe the monument scene). I thought some of the action shots were piss-poor to begin with and it was hard to see what was going on, and it would just make it harder in 3D. Not to mention a lot of it is nighttime action. I think I'm good holding off on the 3D stuff. On that note, in 2017 I thought the CGI stuff on long shots of Spider-Man flipping would look more realistic these days, but I guess this is the best that we'll get. I was somewhat unimpressed with the visuals of this film, so I'm glad that the story and characters made up for all of that.
If you are going into this film without seeing any of the other Marvel universe films, I'd recommend you watch The Avengers and Captain America: Civil War first (maybe even Iron Man if you're really pushing films to see). The reason I say all of this is because I'm going to tell my little sister that I saw this and liked it, and she'd ask if I should recommend it to her, to which point I'd probably say yes... but she hasn't seen those other films first. And honestly, as good as this film is, I think it only works best as it fits within the universe.
I'm not saying that this film can't be appreciated without seeing the others, but I think the others serve equally as good of cinematic value as this one. Why should someone see this film before Civil War? What greater purpose does that serve? Getting your Spider-Man fill? I guess, but then I think you're missing the larger picture. That's probably why I like SM2 the most; in the comic book movie lore, it serves as a piece of standalone art so well for me, that it's doing more than just adding to the painting. Same with something like The Dark Knight, and Logan.
I'll of course be adding this to the Blu-ray collection, and frankly with the way this film ended, I can't wait for the next time he shows up in a Marvel film, or his next standalone film.
Now, I have a timeline question I couldn't piece together. Maybe someone can answer it for me?
Spoiler
I might already be answering it in this first sentence, but as Happy was moving items upstate,
it made it seem like they haven't yet officially launched at their new HQ yet, but maybe they have. Haven't we already seen that place in Age of Ultron and Ant Man? Since Civil War certainly happens after those two films and SM:H happens after Civil War, why are they still transporting items from the original HQ to this one, as if it seems like they're still "working on moving there?"
it made it seem like they haven't yet officially launched at their new HQ yet, but maybe they have. Haven't we already seen that place in Age of Ultron and Ant Man? Since Civil War certainly happens after those two films and SM:H happens after Civil War, why are they still transporting items from the original HQ to this one, as if it seems like they're still "working on moving there?"
Spoiler
the Avengers HQ is Upstate. Tony was still living at the Tower, so Moving Day was just him getting all of his stuff/toys/etc. and taking it to Upstate, officially ending the first "phase" in a way. So no more Tower, all Avengers stuff will now happen at Upstate.
Comment