Is Spiderman: Homecoming even remotely good?

[Hawki]

Goes like this for me:

1. Spider-Man 2 - A+
2. Spider-Man - A-
3. Spider-Man: Homecoming - C+
4. Spider-Man 3 - C+
5. Amazing Spider-Man - C
6. Amazing Spider-Man 2 - D

If we're playing the ranking game:

6) The Amazing Spider-Man (4/10)
5) Spider-Man 3 (5/10)
4) the Amazing Spider-Man 2 (7/10)
3) Spider-Man: Homecoming (7/10)
2) Spider-Man (8/10)
1) Spider-Man 2 (9/10)

Granted, it's been ages since I've seen a lot of these films, so some of the rankings are really approximations, though I'm pretty sure about the order.

It's a world that's been hit by superheroes and superhero-level threats already, and within it, Spider-Man is allowed to actually be as much a kid as a superhero. There's a world that exists around him that goes on without him, and feels like it exists for more than to supply him with new super-villains and love interests. I think that's kind of great.

It's not a world-shaking story or a game-changing movie, and I kind of like it for that.

Pretty much this.

It does require foreknowledge of the MCU to work, but I like how it feels like its own thing (at least comparatively).

 

[Kyrian007]

It probably would have been received much better if it wasn't being compared to the Raimi films. It isn't at that level, little is. But it fits right in with most of the MCU origin movies. It may not be IM1 or Doctor Strange, but it's better than CA1 or Thor. Right around the level of Ant Man, not quite GotG.

The suit looks cartoony, the tone just feels wrong, like where is the "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility" moral here?

This just shows how much Superhero movies had changed and the standards Disney Marvel has established.

No grit, no stakes, no concequences. The feeling I am having with Spiderman here is the same feelings I have with Dragon Ball Super in comparison to Dragon Ball Z.

They basically skipped that, and I'm not sure that was such a bad idea. Just as an example (and I'll even include parts of DC that I love) going back to even the Tim Burton days, EVERY SINGLE Batman iteration has to waste time rehashing the origin story. Reeeallly driving home the "daaarrkk tragedy of his childhoooood, and how it shapes his buuurrrnnnniinng need for veeennnngggance.... of the night." You say no grit, stakes or consequences in Homecoming... but the "grimdark Batman" formula replaces that with "no RESOLUTION." No trauma overcome, no lessons learned... basically 0 character growth. AND you pare that with having to tell the exact same half hour of so of character background that frankly... everybody already knows. Its a boring waste of time... in generally good movies

And in Batman that's ok, he's only Batmanning as an adult. An adult really set in his ways with really little potential for character growth. With Homecoming... they skipped the dark backstory. "Great power great responsibility... he understands that. That's a part of the story the audience knows, in fact he may have gone too far in that direction... now he's learning another lesson. Several actually. Patience, caution, tactics, and where his limits are. Peter is a KID. He can still change, grow, not be continually driven to vengeance by the by the trauma of his past. He can be a man who has learned from his past and become a better hero by acknowledging his mistakes and frankly in terms of his emotional baggage... like a normal person he can "get over it" while learning lessons from it. A development Batman is never allowed to make. I love several of the movies... but I'm always wanting someone to just shake Batman and just say "Dude, that shit happened when you were a kid... everyone involved is dead... freaking let it go!"

Its a new part of a story. I don't know if skipping the part we already know was a better way to tell the story. But I can see the advantages in doing it that way with the HUGE ICONIC characters that most people are very familiar with like Spider-Man.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

I liked that Spider-Man is just genuinely out to help people. There's no mention of any dark past or overly complicated backstory (coughAmazingSpiderMancough), he's just a kid who's been given enormous potential to help people and can't help himself but use it.
Hell even his arc in the film is that he doesn't need the suit you find cartoony to do things, just his own ingenuity and drive. He's just undeniably a good guy and it makes you really root for him

 

[Myria]

If not for Keaton and his amazing realization-in-the-car scene, I probably would have forgotten everything about the movie an hour after watching it.

It's not a bad movie by any stretch, just not particularly good and, outside of Keaton's performance, nothing at all memorable.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Am I the only one that thinks Spiderman 1 was better than 2?

I wasn't a fan of Dr. Octopus in the movie.

Goes like this for me:

1. Spider-Man 2 - A+
2. Spider-Man - A-
3. Spider-Man: Homecoming - C+
4. Spider-Man 3 - C+
5. Amazing Spider-Man - C
6. Amazing Spider-Man 2 - D

If we're playing the ranking game:

6) The Amazing Spider-Man (4/10)
5) Spider-Man 3 (5/10)
4) the Amazing Spider-Man 2 (7/10)
3) Spider-Man: Homecoming (7/10)
2) Spider-Man (8/10)
1) Spider-Man 2 (9/10)

Granted, it's been ages since I've seen a lot of these films, so some of the rankings are really approximations, though I'm pretty sure about the order.

It's a world that's been hit by superheroes and superhero-level threats already, and within it, Spider-Man is allowed to actually be as much a kid as a superhero. There's a world that exists around him that goes on without him, and feels like it exists for more than to supply him with new super-villains and love interests. I think that's kind of great.

It's not a world-shaking story or a game-changing movie, and I kind of like it for that.

Pretty much this.

It does require foreknowledge of the MCU to work, but I like how it feels like its own thing (at least comparatively).

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

I'd rank it as one of Marvel's better movies. If you're looking for the dramatic weight of the Raimi films (the first two anyway), you'll be disappointed. Homecoming is a flat-out comedy, and it works because there's no abrupt tonal shifts comparable to Dr Strange or anything. It does have a bit of drama and a couple of actually pretty well thought out surprises, but it's not going to rock your world. A nice, fun popcorn flick but nothing more.

No grit, no stakes, no concequences. The feeling I am having with Spiderman here is the same feelings I have with Dragon Ball Super in comparison to Dragon Ball Z.

Honestly, the same could be said about pretty much every post-Winter Soldier Marvel movie.

 

[Kyrian007]

Am I the only one that thinks Spiderman 1 was better than 2?

I wasn't a fan of Dr. Octopus in the movie.

I wouldn't disagree too hard with that, at least the first part. Spider Man 2 was excellent, no question. But Spider Man had the benefit of destroying expectations. We were coming off of seeing X-Men and thinking "WOW, a comic book movie that good... unbelievable! And that was just a response to Schumacher and others driving the bar so low. Along comes Spider Man and just (organic web shooters aside) really puts the comic book right up there on the screen. Singer had joked about "yellow spandex" but Spider Man, and Peter Parker, and Norman Osborn (maybe not Green Goblin,) and especially J. Jonah Jamison looked JUST LIKE they did in the comics. And it wasn't silly looking, it was awesome. To me it may have been a toss up about which was the better movie, but I don't think I have any doubt which the more groundbreaking and at the time important one was.

Now Doc Oc... I won't say I didn't have problems with him. Some of his motivations were written a little quickly and don't stand up well to scrutiny. On the other hand if we're comparing him to the first Spider Man movie, well Willem Dafoe was characteristically a little over the top as Norman Osborne so the villains more or less evened themselves out.

At least we never had to sit through the James Cameron Spider Man movie.

 

[maninahat]

I see Spiderman 2 as over rated, and only any good because of Doctor Octopus. That said, I think Homecoming certainly comes close to being on par with the Raimi movies. It feels like they took the useful ingredients from Raimi and made a familiar enough movie out of them (light hearted, small scope, fond of NY, high school orientated, awesome actor playing the villain). It's a safe movie that tends to treat its women like prizes/baggage, but I recommend it entirely.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

It's a Marvel movie. As usual, it's barely not awful. We're not gonna get anything like the Raimi movies again anytime soon, that's for sure.

That's probably a good thing. His best is still Army of Darkness, and while campy to a Nth degree, its a dog-shit movie.

Oh, come on. It's not like I don't hate fun but Spiderman 1 and 2 are both prime examples of just making a good superhero movie. They aren't subversive, they aren't particulary self aware, they aren't intellectually challenging but they are a good time. They're pretty corny but I think it mostly works in their favour.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Am I the only one that thinks Spiderman 1 was better than 2?

I wasn't a fan of Dr. Octopus in the movie.

I wouldn't disagree too hard with that, at least the first part. Spider Man 2 was excellent, no question. But Spider Man had the benefit of destroying expectations. We were coming off of seeing X-Men and thinking "WOW, a comic book movie that good... unbelievable! And that was just a response to Schumacher and others driving the bar so low. Along comes Spider Man and just (organic web shooters aside) really puts the comic book right up there on the screen. Singer had joked about "yellow spandex" but Spider Man, and Peter Parker, and Norman Osborn (maybe not Green Goblin,) and especially J. Jonah Jamison looked JUST LIKE they did in the comics. And it wasn't silly looking, it was awesome. To me it may have been a toss up about which was the better movie, but I don't think I have any doubt which the more groundbreaking and at the time important one was.

Now Doc Oc... I won't say I didn't have problems with him. Some of his motivations were written a little quickly and don't stand up well to scrutiny. On the other hand if we're comparing him to the first Spider Man movie, well Willem Dafoe was characteristically a little over the top as Norman Osborne so the villains more or less evened themselves out.

At least we never had to sit through the James Cameron Spider Man movie.

I actually think the Organic Web shooter is superior to the whole mechanical device that shoots webs.

It perfectly fits with whole theme of Marvel that all their Superheroes are essentially Mutants, the Fantastic Four, the Hulk, the X-Men, Captain America technically.

I mean why was the web shooter a mechanical device while him climbing on walls is shown as natural?

Also the first 2 X-Men movies imo have not aged well. And its all in part because of poor choice in aesthetics. And most of the charcaters were unmemorable except Hugh Jackmen, Patrick Stewert, and Ian McKellen.

 

[EscapistAccount]

Yeah it's fine.

It's an OK film, I've watched it again but wouldn't be in any hurry to do so again again. It didn't rehash the origin story which thank fucking god for that because I've seen/read it way too many times now, it correctly assumes its viewers will know who Spider Man is. The villain was good, the plot serviceable and it made him imperfect without making him a 100% total fuckup rather than just a high school kid who wasn't being too smart with his decisions because, hey, teenager.

I dunno, I guess I'm getting older but I just can't care too much about nerdy entertainment shit any more, even a bad film would've just been like "meh OK, whatever. Let's grab a pizza".

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I dunno, I guess I'm getting older but I just can't care too much about nerdy entertainment shit any more, even a bad film would've just been like "meh OK, whatever. Let's grab a pizza".

Watching superior non Nerdy movies will do that to you. It started for me when I watched the Godfather for the first time, than a bunch of War movies, that There Will Be Blood, Than Scorsese, than Kubrick, etc.

 

[Natemans]

Am I the only one that thinks Spiderman 1 was better than 2?

I wasn't a fan of Dr. Octopus in the movie.

I wouldn't disagree too hard with that, at least the first part. Spider Man 2 was excellent, no question. But Spider Man had the benefit of destroying expectations. We were coming off of seeing X-Men and thinking "WOW, a comic book movie that good... unbelievable! And that was just a response to Schumacher and others driving the bar so low. Along comes Spider Man and just (organic web shooters aside) really puts the comic book right up there on the screen. Singer had joked about "yellow spandex" but Spider Man, and Peter Parker, and Norman Osborn (maybe not Green Goblin,) and especially J. Jonah Jamison looked JUST LIKE they did in the comics. And it wasn't silly looking, it was awesome. To me it may have been a toss up about which was the better movie, but I don't think I have any doubt which the more groundbreaking and at the time important one was.

Now Doc Oc... I won't say I didn't have problems with him. Some of his motivations were written a little quickly and don't stand up well to scrutiny. On the other hand if we're comparing him to the first Spider Man movie, well Willem Dafoe was characteristically a little over the top as Norman Osborne so the villains more or less evened themselves out.

At least we never had to sit through the James Cameron Spider Man movie.

I actually think the Organic Web shooter is superior to the whole mechanical device that shoots webs.

It perfectly fits with whole theme of Marvel that all their Superheroes are essentially Mutants, the Fantastic Four, the Hulk, the X-Men, Captain America technically.

I mean why was the web shooter a mechanical device while him climbing on walls is shown as natural?

Also the first 2 X-Men movies imo have not aged well. And its all in part because of poor choice in aesthetics. And most of the charcaters were unmemorable except Hugh Jackmen, Patrick Stewert, and Ian McKellen.

Honestly I prefer the mechanical webs since it adds more to Peter Parker's character being intelligent.

Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, Captain America and Hulk are not really mutants that much imo. Yeah, the X-Men are mutants and born from the X-gene, but the rest aren't really if its from science test subjects or hit by cosmic rays.


I agree with the first X-Men film being okay and not aging well, but I enjoyed the cast. X2 I still thought was great with a good story and the score is fantastic.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

It's a Marvel movie. As usual, it's barely not awful. We're not gonna get anything like the Raimi movies again anytime soon, that's for sure.

That's probably a good thing. His best is still Army of Darkness, and while campy to a Nth degree, its a dog-shit movie.

Oh, come on. It's not like I don't hate fun but Spiderman 1 and 2 are both prime examples of just making a good superhero movie. They aren't subversive, they aren't particulary self aware, they aren't intellectually challenging but they are a good time. They're pretty corny but I think it mostly works in their favour.

Its not that I need all super hero movies to be the Dark Knight, but I do need them to be well acted. And between McGuire, Dafoe, Dunst and fucking Franco, I didn't believe a single line of dialogue. It always felt like the scenes end a split second before the actors burst out laughing at how terrible this is.
The only person I ever thought did a passable job was Thomas Haden Church as Sandman.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Am I the only one that thinks Spiderman 1 was better than 2?

I wasn't a fan of Dr. Octopus in the movie.

I wouldn't disagree too hard with that, at least the first part. Spider Man 2 was excellent, no question. But Spider Man had the benefit of destroying expectations. We were coming off of seeing X-Men and thinking "WOW, a comic book movie that good... unbelievable! And that was just a response to Schumacher and others driving the bar so low. Along comes Spider Man and just (organic web shooters aside) really puts the comic book right up there on the screen. Singer had joked about "yellow spandex" but Spider Man, and Peter Parker, and Norman Osborn (maybe not Green Goblin,) and especially J. Jonah Jamison looked JUST LIKE they did in the comics. And it wasn't silly looking, it was awesome. To me it may have been a toss up about which was the better movie, but I don't think I have any doubt which the more groundbreaking and at the time important one was.

Now Doc Oc... I won't say I didn't have problems with him. Some of his motivations were written a little quickly and don't stand up well to scrutiny. On the other hand if we're comparing him to the first Spider Man movie, well Willem Dafoe was characteristically a little over the top as Norman Osborne so the villains more or less evened themselves out.

At least we never had to sit through the James Cameron Spider Man movie.

I actually think the Organic Web shooter is superior to the whole mechanical device that shoots webs.

It perfectly fits with whole theme of Marvel that all their Superheroes are essentially Mutants, the Fantastic Four, the Hulk, the X-Men, Captain America technically.

I mean why was the web shooter a mechanical device while him climbing on walls is shown as natural?

Also the first 2 X-Men movies imo have not aged well. And its all in part because of poor choice in aesthetics. And most of the charcaters were unmemorable except Hugh Jackmen, Patrick Stewert, and Ian McKellen.

Honestly I prefer the mechanical webs since it adds more to Peter Parker's character being intelligent.

Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, Captain America and Hulk are not really mutants that much imo. Yeah, the X-Men are mutants and born from the X-gene, but the rest aren't really if its from science test subjects or hit by cosmic rays.


I agree with the first X-Men film being okay and not aging well, but I enjoyed the cast. X2 I still thought was great with a good story and the score is fantastic.

Ah sometimes I forget that Peter Parker was supposed to be a scientist like character, something I doubt Homecoming acknowledges from all the characterization I have heard of him.

X-Men 2 they were passing by just recently on TV and I have completely forgotten the movie, every character, and the plot, etc.

I mean I still remember the Dark Knight and Spiderman, even Hulk 2003 in bits and pieces.

Everything about the X-Men movies I forgot, including most of the cast which I don't even know who any of the actors are except Wolverine, Magneto, Professor X, and Storm.

 

[jademunky]

NOTE: PLEASE DO NOT BRING UP DC MOVIES I AM NOT EVEN THINKING ABOUT DC MOVIES WITH THIS THREAD AT ALL.


Because so far I am getting the impression that this movie's reception boils down to, "Its not Amazing Spider-Man 2 so its good" and/or "Spiderman is now in the MCU!" or "Sony lost the rights to Spiderman yay"

I think it's really good yeah.

Is it better than the first 2 Remy Spidey films? In some ways:

Reasons for Homecoming:
- Better Peter Parker. This one actually looks and acts like someone who is 15 or 16, the age Comic Peter started. I actually found myself realizing just how irritating Toby Maguire's version of the character was just by watching Homecoming. This version of the character also seems to have somehow internalized some of the lessons of prior incarnations of himself. For example, his

Spoiler

refusal of Tony Stark's offer to publically reveal his identity and officially join the Avengers at the end.

- Better villain. Someone with understandable motivations and achievable endgame goals. Also did not wear cheap plastic green halloween mask or be mind-controlled by his own metal appendages.
- no origin story rehash
- Ned is awesome, no Harry Osborn in sight.
- The Captain America PSAs, with Hannibal Buress's observation that Cap is considered a war criminal at the current moment in continuity

Reasons for Spider-man 1 & 2:
- J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson
- Much more......Iconic, scenes like the upside-down-spider-kiss make the film more memorable
- Bruce Campbell is always mildly amusing. In fact, it mildly amuses me just to think of him now.

 

[jademunky]

Another observation, does anyone notice how Aunt May keeps getting much (like 2 decades) younger with each movie incarnation?

 

[Hawki]

Another observation, does anyone notice how Aunt May keeps getting much (like 2 decades) younger with each movie incarnation?

Lots of people. It's even brought up in Homecoming as a reference (forget who, but Aunt May being referenced at "hot").

 

[jademunky]

Another observation, does anyone notice how Aunt May keeps getting much (like 2 decades) younger with each movie incarnation?

Lots of people. It's even brought up in Homecoming as a reference (forget who, but Aunt May being referenced at "hot").

Oh, I remember that line, I think it was Tony Stark.

Funny thing is, this makes more sense. If Peter is a teenager, his aunt should look like she's in her early 40's. As opposed to always pushing 90 like in the comics (excluding those relatively recent years where the artist inexplicably drew her as Iggy Pop).