I really enjoyed this movie! In my opinion, I thought it was better produced than the other spider man movies. Also the main character, Tom Holland, fits the role very well. He looks much younger than the other old spidermen which makes the movie that much more believable. The movie itself stuck great to the plot line while maintaining a very light hearted feel to make the audience laugh. Most importantly, it made him a true hero. Towards the end of the movie his antagonist throughout the entire movie almost died, yet Peter still saved him which is something not everyone would do. I really liked the movie overall and would recommend it to everyone.
1
Woah! I'm so surprised that Keaton got a good review in this. The villain storyline was pretty weak. Keaton's acting was moreso stiff yelling and — sorry, Manohla, I disagree — very much a caricature. Just of a less cinematically covered stereotype (construction, blue collar workers). The "bad guy" scenes's dialogue was painful at times and the Birdman/Vulture shoutout seemed like it was patting itself on the back too much.
Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the movie! But the villain part seemed like the weakest aspect to me.
Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the movie! But the villain part seemed like the weakest aspect to me.
I wish this movie review concentrated on reviewing this movie. It's one thing to compare it to other Spiderman movies, but do you have to bring up Batman, Birdman, Cop Car and every other movie you've ever seen?
The Vulture's wings were not "mostly resonant as a tepid joke about Mr. Keaton’s aerial acrobatics in 'Batman' and 'Birdman.'" They were his super villain outfit. Nobody said, "Hey Michael Keaton is in this flick? Wouldn't be great if we made a weird reference to that Birdman movie he made?" The guy is named The Vulture. He's got wings. And the wings were clunky because they were made out of recovered scraps of alien technology put together by his grubby little buddy. You're just stretching too hard to make a clever reference.
This was a good line: "What makes Spider-Man different and, ideally, work as a character, giving him an off-kilter charm, is he retains the uncertainties and vulnerabilities of adolescence."
Unfortunately you ruined it by spending the rest of the review whining about the movie's off-kilter charm and many moments that showed Peter Parker's uncertainties and vulnerabilities.
For example: "A brief scene of him sneaking into his bedroom (to avoid Marisa Tomei’s Aunt May) has more tension than any single action set piece." Well of course it does. Because when you're a teenager the worst part about crashing your dad's car isn't hitting the telephone pole, it's having to tell your dad about it when you get home. This movie captures that.
The Vulture's wings were not "mostly resonant as a tepid joke about Mr. Keaton’s aerial acrobatics in 'Batman' and 'Birdman.'" They were his super villain outfit. Nobody said, "Hey Michael Keaton is in this flick? Wouldn't be great if we made a weird reference to that Birdman movie he made?" The guy is named The Vulture. He's got wings. And the wings were clunky because they were made out of recovered scraps of alien technology put together by his grubby little buddy. You're just stretching too hard to make a clever reference.
This was a good line: "What makes Spider-Man different and, ideally, work as a character, giving him an off-kilter charm, is he retains the uncertainties and vulnerabilities of adolescence."
Unfortunately you ruined it by spending the rest of the review whining about the movie's off-kilter charm and many moments that showed Peter Parker's uncertainties and vulnerabilities.
For example: "A brief scene of him sneaking into his bedroom (to avoid Marisa Tomei’s Aunt May) has more tension than any single action set piece." Well of course it does. Because when you're a teenager the worst part about crashing your dad's car isn't hitting the telephone pole, it's having to tell your dad about it when you get home. This movie captures that.
4
My family and I saw this movie on Saturday, and we really enjoyed it. All the actors were really good. Can't wait for another Spiderman sequel.
2
I'm surprised/disappointed this review didn't call out some of the specific charms of this movie for NYCers. Peter's school has a great, diverse group of kids. And the movie feels like an outer-borough movie, a little blue collar, a little gritty (without being morbid or mopey). I don't think any action sequences took place in Manhattan - all we see of it is a little bit around the Avenger HQ building. Instead we see neighborhoods, warehouses, Coney Island, a perfect golf course moment, a slightly anachronistic Staten Island Ferry sequence, and Spidey working and failing in his decidedly middle class surroundings. Plus the Ramones and a bodega cat.
It's not a flawless movie, but as someone who can really take or leave superhero flicks, I really enjoyed it.
It's not a flawless movie, but as someone who can really take or leave superhero flicks, I really enjoyed it.
3
Don't listen to Ms. Dargis; this is the best comic book superhero movie I've seen in a while. (I did like Wonder Woman, but the Christopher Nolan darkness or heaviness or whatever lingers. Marvel vs. DC films are like Mozart vs. Wagner; I guess I prefer Mozart.) RDJ as Tony Stark is the best choice Marvel has made, and though he is a minor character in terms of screen time, his presence always makes whatever film he's in better. And Tom Holland is a better Peter Parker/Spidey than Andrew Garfield, and maybe even better than Tobey Maguire. (It's a close call; I might still give the edge to TM in the first Spider-man movie.) Michael Keaton plays his villain role not as your usual over-the-top insane bad guy, and the fact that the character is conceived more realistically than most villains--excellent! There is humor, great action scenes (especially in D.C.), and some genuine surprises. Plus it's a movie you can take kids to--probably 8 and up. My only complaint: I still don't like young, sexy Aunt May (nothing against Marisa Tomei--I've been a fan since "A Different World"). Just isn't keeping with original Spider-Man (the comics, I mean, as well as the Tobey Maguire movies). Rosemary Harris was perfect!
1
So, I did see it, and Imust say that except for some sturdy Keaton sequences near the end it felt exhaustingly cute and over-edited, like the Maguire or Garfield movies for the tech-addled, ADD modern generation. Nothing that hadn't been done better before. Let this character go, or at least reboot him in his more introspective thirties where the comic took him decades ago.
2
I thought the movie was fun, funny, and exciting, and Tom Holland playing off an excellent Michael Keaton was really interesting and well-written. However, I can't help but notice that this "reboot" in particular seems willing to stray pretty far from the original 1960's comic book version. Aunt May is hot?! Flash Thompson is latino and smart?! MJ is muticultural?! Couldn't tell if this was the price for Avengerizing Spidey (Spiderman part of the Avengers?!) or simply bringing a story now 50 years old into the 21st Century. Wondering how the fanboys are reacting to all this. However, as a simple movie, I loved it.
1
It's Queens in 2017. Yeah, they ain't all gonna be white kids.
How about that Flash license plate though, huh?
How about that Flash license plate though, huh?
2
(yeah, it must be hard to let your privilege go)
Origin stories are the most appealing part of just about every superhero.
This is true of Spider-Man (triply so now), and because he starts as a regular kid like most of us do (but few superheroes), it's more interesting to see him develop than fight villains we know he will defeat to move on to the next issue/movie.
But Spidey certainly has not ONLY appealed as "a kid." He's never been frozen in time. He's not Spider-Boy. He grows up, goes to college, gets a job.
And you can't say he's "comparatively rinky-dink" -- it's not fair to compare him to the likes of Thor, Hulk or suited Iron Man. Everyone's rinky-dink next to them.
But Spidey's still 10 to 20 times as strong as Captain America, heals fast, is super agile, can climb any surface, is brilliant and inventive, has webbing that is more useful and versatile than most superhero weapons, and has that uncanny Spidey sense.
One of the best things about Spidey's story -- and this is a lesson our most powerful real-world Americans seem to have forgotten -- is that is the one that explicitly teaches us "with great power comes great responsibility."
This is true of Spider-Man (triply so now), and because he starts as a regular kid like most of us do (but few superheroes), it's more interesting to see him develop than fight villains we know he will defeat to move on to the next issue/movie.
But Spidey certainly has not ONLY appealed as "a kid." He's never been frozen in time. He's not Spider-Boy. He grows up, goes to college, gets a job.
And you can't say he's "comparatively rinky-dink" -- it's not fair to compare him to the likes of Thor, Hulk or suited Iron Man. Everyone's rinky-dink next to them.
But Spidey's still 10 to 20 times as strong as Captain America, heals fast, is super agile, can climb any surface, is brilliant and inventive, has webbing that is more useful and versatile than most superhero weapons, and has that uncanny Spidey sense.
One of the best things about Spidey's story -- and this is a lesson our most powerful real-world Americans seem to have forgotten -- is that is the one that explicitly teaches us "with great power comes great responsibility."
3
Spidey
What we need now is old Spidey again
Just as he was way back and when
He came to himself and discovered his powers -
Now on the big screen, in 3-D he’d ours;
What a relief, the old plot line’s revived
Old story recycled – we know it’s contrived
‘Cause we loved our Spidey way back and when -
The same old made new, just play it again
What we need now is old Spidey again
Just as he was way back and when
He came to himself and discovered his powers -
Now on the big screen, in 3-D he’d ours;
What a relief, the old plot line’s revived
Old story recycled – we know it’s contrived
‘Cause we loved our Spidey way back and when -
The same old made new, just play it again
It was quite good, maybe the best of all the Marvel movies. Avengers 1, Iron Man 1, or Captain America 3 fans might argue, but it had heart and humour and charm.
Tom Holland was good; the diverse cast was nice.
Tell Marvel and DC to keep going, more like this. :-).
Tom Holland was good; the diverse cast was nice.
Tell Marvel and DC to keep going, more like this. :-).
1
a surprisingly excellent and fun movie. one of the best mavel movies to date. Me thinks on this one the Times thinks too much. Relax and enjoy the ride.
7
To say this is a Sony reboot is wildly misleading. Sony is distributing the movie, but this is a MARVEL production, taking place in that fat more successful "universe" of movies. And if one doesn't get that the homecoming is clearly a not-subtle indicator that Spidey has finally come home to the Marvel fold, well, not sure how much of this movie you'll understand.
1
I'm not sure Hollywood has had more than a handful of new ideas in the last two decades. The seemingly endless string of repetitive superhero films, remakes and re-imaginings bears witness to an almost complete absence of creativity. Move along...nothing to see here...nothing that everyone hasn't seen a hundred times before. Hollywood seems to have recognized that the dumbing down of America is proceeding on schedule and that it will do whatever is necessary to lead the way.
I thought the movie was pretty good. And while I wholly support an age appropriate Spiderman, I thought the total lack of any mention of Uncle Ben was problematic. Uncle Ben's death is the primary reason for Spiderman's existence, "With great power, comes great responsibility". He's not swinging around from building to building, helping people for the fun of it. He's doing it to partially atone for his part in the death of his beloved uncle.
2
These comments are hilarious. You're tired of the prospect of "yet another" another Spider-man movie? Here's a thought: don't see it. Stay home, rent La La Land or some other dreck instead and let the fans enjoy this moment. Ten years ago it was unconceivable that we'd ever get to see Spider-man and the Avengers share the same screen, and now that's a reality. Just because you're too cynical to see how cool that is doesn't mean it's not bringing joy to others.
3
Yup. I mean, I came at it from the other approach - the last 2 Spidey movies didn't appeal to me at all so I ignored them, and didn't feel burned out at all in watching (and greatly enjoying) this one. I've dated my fair share of comic fanboys, and they never seem to believe me when I say: you don't HAVE to see them all. When you're rolling your eyes or sighing in irritation, just skip it.
My fav bit of irony was the companion piece celebrating the female producer for rebooting - yet again - the spider-man franchise.
This proves - yet again - there is no shortage of folks that like their entertainment pre-chewed and pablum-like.
This proves - yet again - there is no shortage of folks that like their entertainment pre-chewed and pablum-like.
I wish this movie success (if earned), but I understand sequels are no safe bet? I assume (and hope) the talent in the film industry isn't running out of original ideas...
www.thewaryouknow.com
www.thewaryouknow.com
Well, I just saw it about an hour ago.
And I cannot imagine how anyone could write a review without mentioning the car ride scene when Keaton puts 2 and 2 together.
The pacing, acting and music were near perfection.
I'll see the movie again, for those five minutes.
And I cannot imagine how anyone could write a review without mentioning the car ride scene when Keaton puts 2 and 2 together.
The pacing, acting and music were near perfection.
I'll see the movie again, for those five minutes.
5
The pacing was exhausting, like everyone was on twenty Red Bulls.
I'm not a big fan of The Marvel Universe, but it has its moments. I'm old enough to remember reading the first Spider-Man comic books when they came out. That Spider-Man is generations and many, many, 'retcons' ago in both the comics, cartoons ( excuse me, 'anime ') the movies and 'graphic novels'. The Spider-Man in this movie, is by far was the closest in feel and sensibility to the original comics than anything that has come before it. Imagine, a woman teenager doing something stupid, impulsive, or to impress his peers or parental figures? My wife teaches middle school. She says that when it comes to the teenage mind, they pretty much nailed it. For that reason alone, I'd say this was the 'best' Spider-Man in that it was the truest. More importantly, it was fun.
1
This is a review for other 55 year olds who will never see this movie, so that they have enough context to have a chuckle about it at a boring party. This movie isn't for you. Please retire and make way for new conversation and fewer, tired Tom Wolfe references.
3
Audie, how many "spiderman reboots" is too many for you to watch? 3? 5?
thaaaaats the thing.
thaaaaats the thing.
Hard to figure out if this review intends for the reader to watch the movie or not!
Soon we will have only three movie options - Spiderman, Batman or Superman.
And all Caucasian.
I'd like to see John Waters do the next version with his zany characters. I think it would be hilarious.
2
I understand that the reason this keeps being rebooted has to do with all sorts of Hollywood studio business and properties and universes and all that, but, still, it's kind of ridiculous to have three big-budget movies (and a Broadway musical!) tell the same origin story within the space of fifteen years. Are audiences really clamoring for this? Are generations passing that quickly that anything more than ten minutes old is considered outdated? It seems to me, that in an age when one could see either the Maguire or Garfield versions with a few clicks and that doing so would be easier than trekking to the multiplex to see the latest version, that this would be a bad investment. But perhaps that's why I'm not a Hollywood executive.
2
Maybe you should watch the movie, or at least read a synopsis, before you make a comment. This most recent rebooted Spider-man movie does not re-tell the same origin story, or any origin story, for that matter.
5
This is not a new origin story. They skipped that part for obvious reasons. Why this reboot matters is because it's Spidey's first time in the MCU. So he will also be a part of the Avengers movies, which is awesome. What's also very important here is that creatively this movie is made by Marvel, not Sony. That's very important because Sony is bad at movies. Sony did do marketing for this movie which means they, as always, almost killed the movie with loads of trailers, sneak peeks, snippets, feuturettes, clips etc etc. Ignoring all Sony parts this will be the best Spiderman i'm sure. I will go see it in a few hours.
Here comes a spidey fan.
I'm an old comics fan, but I'm not sure I can go through another Spider-Man reboot. This is starting to turn into jury duty.
31
To each his own. I am also an old comics fan and very much enjoyed the film.
What you don't understand is that you're not required to go see it.
1
I am always amazed how Hollywood types always seem to have money for reboots, as rebooted as this one.
Wait for next year's Spider-Man, where his grandmother gets bitten by a spider (hopefully Marisa again), but instead of fighting crime she becomes a villain. Spidey will have to decide whether to kill her grandma and really grow up, or let her rampage through the city while he necks with his next girlfriend or boyfriend (sign of the times).
You know what....I just got it.....it really is comics of my youth, it is just in movie installments...but can you call it art?
Wait for next year's Spider-Man, where his grandmother gets bitten by a spider (hopefully Marisa again), but instead of fighting crime she becomes a villain. Spidey will have to decide whether to kill her grandma and really grow up, or let her rampage through the city while he necks with his next girlfriend or boyfriend (sign of the times).
You know what....I just got it.....it really is comics of my youth, it is just in movie installments...but can you call it art?
2
I'm waiting for Quentin Tarantino's Spider-man. Or, how about a Thor sequel directed by John Waters?
7
I will never go to a comic book-based movie. I don't care if it's Oscar material.
3
That's like saying "I will never read a fiction book, even if it's Shakespeare". There's no reason to rule out everything in a particular category, other than narrow-mindedness.
9
Too bad. You really missed out on some fun with Downey's first Iron Man and Wonder Woman.
1
Oh really? So you wouldn't bother to go see the animated movie version of Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis? or Terry Zwigoff's Crumb or American Splendor?
That makes about as much sense as me saying I'd never go see a science fiction or a western movie.
That makes about as much sense as me saying I'd never go see a science fiction or a western movie.
3
Wow!!! Another somewhat positive review of a super hero movie. That's going to upset sooooo many readers who almost always complain that there are way toooooooo many super hero movies, and that they are all reeeeeeeeee-treads and reeeeeeeee-boots. Enough!!!
7
Keaton has now accomplished something very special. Being part of one comic book universe, in the current terminology, as Batman (1989, DC Universe, Burton reboot); switch universes AND moral orientation in Spiderman (2017, Marvel Universe, latest reboot) but as the villainous Vulture; previously swap realities in Birdman (2014), as a living actor tormented by the spirit of his former superhero incarnation; much earlier on incarnate a spirit tormenting the living in Beetlejuice (1988, and maybe star/cameo in the 2018/2019/2020 reboot/remake/follow up?), although I almost forgot he recently incarnated the living tormenting the dead in the Robocop (2014) reboot; and last, but not least, in his less-than-sublime turn in the largely forgotten Jack Frost (1998), he managed to switch universes, realities, moral orientations (hey, you're a dead guy with good intentions but who won't let go), AND states of matter (hey, you're a talking snow man).
Clearly Mr. Keaton is well liked in Hollywood by people with a lot of money, various degrees of creativity, and I dare say the kind who are "easily amused."
Clearly Mr. Keaton is well liked in Hollywood by people with a lot of money, various degrees of creativity, and I dare say the kind who are "easily amused."
3
Maybe Michael Keaton is well liked and can do so many different roles because he's really talented.
19
Clearly you have not seen many Michael Keaton films. I suggest you see two dramas he was in - "Clean And Sober" and "Pacific Heights." You may be pleasantly surprised. He doesn't just do comedy though I would love to see him in a sequel of "Beetlejuice" one of the funniest comedic characters ever created.
13
Dont forget "Mr. Mom", one of my childhood favorites! He was quite funny in that comedy as well, and elevated that movie to a higher level than it deserved.
8
Just for the readers' and author's information, the movie is subtitled "Homecoming" because it's Spider-Man's "homecoming" back to Marvel Studios from Sony. Plus there's a little high school reference slipped in there too.
2
I'm not sure whether to love or hate the meta lunacy of Michael Keaton as, essentially, Birdman. Maybe I'll see the movie and decide. Maybe not.
2
Yawn. Another Spider-Man movie, re-treading the same ground covered a couple of times before. I get it - this movie is aimed at the generation of kids that too young (or not yet born) when Tobey McGuire planted that upside down kiss on Kirsten Dunst. My quests is that this version will be of no interest to anyone who remembers the first one and as such, purely an exploitation piece.
6
A few years ago, I watched The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (with Andrew Garfield in the title role) on television with a 12-year-old nephew. I'd already seen the movie in a theater and I was surprised with the nephew constantly laughed at lines I didn't find amusing. It dawned on me that he was the real target audience for the movie and likely the target audience for the latest film incarnation of the web slinger. Contrast this with watching Logan with this same nephew 2 years later. Logan may be the most mature of the comic book movies. It's downright slow in comparison to most superhero flicks. The nephew mentioned having a hard time paying attention to the movie and he didn't really know what was going on at points. I'd prefer more films like Logan and less films aimed at pre-teens and teens.
7
I'll take a light-hearted regurgitation like Spider-Man over a miserable, interminable film like Logan, that felt like one long ad for clinical depression.
Here's an idea: they can make both kinds of films.
1
Jeez, I was just thinking the other day, "I really miss the Spiderman series. In fact, we need more regurgitate films in general" said NO ONE EVER. Enough laziness, Hollywood. Give us real filmmaking for once.
17
Yawn.....
3
Looks as though no one could be bothered to mention that this movie doesn't open until next week. Hopefully, no one reading this review is going to waste their time trying to ascertain where it's playing....
3
Our technology may deceive some people into believing they are omnipotent because they can send a photo of their lunch half-way around the world in an instant- although they cannot pay their rent - but most people sullenly realize they are pawns at the mercy of vast, selfish forces against whom they are helpless. The current superabundance of superheroes reflects this sense of impotence. It used to be the gods whom the downtrodden called to intercede, now it's Marvel and DC. Neither proved very effective.
9
Not again..... The last few were bad enough.
4
Thanks for the heads-up MD. I'm unlikely to see any Marvel film for lack of enthusiasm about the genre unless it breaks new ground (Dr. Strange, for example.) Also, I'm running a grudge about British actors playing Americans. We have a ton of great ones in the US, and someone's gotta tell the studios enough is enough.
4
To me the best Spiderman movie was the first one with Tobey Maguire and this review points out that the main character's youth and his exploration of new abilities is what makes these movies most appealing. That first Spiderman had a sense of wonder and fun that I have missed until this year's Wonder Woman movie which also played on the superhero's naivete and development of powers. The problem is where to go from there. None of the Spiderman sequels were as much fun and the reboot didn't really feel right either. And how can the next Wonder Woman be as much fun now that we've seen her essentially limitless abilities. The one thing Wonder Woman lacked was an interesting bad buy...sounds like Michael Keaton has filled that void nicely in this Spiderman.
14
" The question is when Spidey really grows up, who will he fight for and why?"
You hit the nail right on the head with this question. Stan Lee hit the jackpot when he created Spiderman, the first ever human superhero, and everyday teenager, who suddenly gains super powers, and yet keeps his teenage real world personality. As we see Peter Parker here, 15 years old and full of hero worship for the brilliant and courageous Tony Stark, a good kid eager to please the adults. Parker will grow, he will suffer defeats, he will see how the crowd that cheers him can easily turn into the mob that hunts him, he will have to deal with real world problems like paying the cable bill. The fickleness of humanity that loves you when you save the day, but loathes you when you dent their car doing it, or cause a power outage that knocks out their air conditioning, ordinary human being who can become jealous, and full of envy, all this can lead Peter Parker to consider quitting, to stop risking his life, and putting the people he loves into danger, but he won't , because as Stan Lee so brilliantly put it: "With great powers come great responcibilities." and heroes aren't made by twists of fate, heroes are shaped by many things, including the people who influenced them in their youth as well as their own moral compass. Peter Parker will always be a hero, just like the millions of real world heroes who exist and do the job because, simply put, it's the right thing to do.
You hit the nail right on the head with this question. Stan Lee hit the jackpot when he created Spiderman, the first ever human superhero, and everyday teenager, who suddenly gains super powers, and yet keeps his teenage real world personality. As we see Peter Parker here, 15 years old and full of hero worship for the brilliant and courageous Tony Stark, a good kid eager to please the adults. Parker will grow, he will suffer defeats, he will see how the crowd that cheers him can easily turn into the mob that hunts him, he will have to deal with real world problems like paying the cable bill. The fickleness of humanity that loves you when you save the day, but loathes you when you dent their car doing it, or cause a power outage that knocks out their air conditioning, ordinary human being who can become jealous, and full of envy, all this can lead Peter Parker to consider quitting, to stop risking his life, and putting the people he loves into danger, but he won't , because as Stan Lee so brilliantly put it: "With great powers come great responcibilities." and heroes aren't made by twists of fate, heroes are shaped by many things, including the people who influenced them in their youth as well as their own moral compass. Peter Parker will always be a hero, just like the millions of real world heroes who exist and do the job because, simply put, it's the right thing to do.
6
To set the record straight: Steve Ditko created Spiderman. Stan Lee likes to think he did.
8
Ditto on Ditko
1
Spiderman was Stan Lee's idea. As the editor in chief of Marvel Comics he chose Steve Ditko as the original illustrator of Spiderman, so he drew Spiderman but the stories and the whole character was Stan Lee's.
1
Somebody, please, anybody, just make Marvel and DC stop.
36
God forbid the cinema ever let Spider-Man become an adult. It's not like the comics have ever let him mature and have to endure the foils of normal life over the past few decades.
Every reboot seems to be like those people who are desperately clinging to their supposed "Glory Days" gone past, lamenting those long ago lost moments at the expense of what could be an incredible future. I remember the angst of adolescence, and it's tough, I get it, however life doesn't get any easier, and it's the constant challenge and potential that keeps people interested.
Every reboot seems to be like those people who are desperately clinging to their supposed "Glory Days" gone past, lamenting those long ago lost moments at the expense of what could be an incredible future. I remember the angst of adolescence, and it's tough, I get it, however life doesn't get any easier, and it's the constant challenge and potential that keeps people interested.
3
The only thing more pathetic is when they greenlight feature-length remakes of '60s- and even '50s-era TV shows.
"Car 54, Where Are You?" (TV 1961-63, movie 1994)
"Sgt. Bilko" (TV 1955-1959, movie 1996)
"Bewitched" (TV 1964-72, movie 2005)
"Car 54, Where Are You?" (TV 1961-63, movie 1994)
"Sgt. Bilko" (TV 1955-1959, movie 1996)
"Bewitched" (TV 1964-72, movie 2005)
Yet another reboot. 0 interest. Not seeing it. Don't care. Totally sick of reboots and fake sequel / thinly disguised remakes, and especially sick of Spiderman reboots. I going to go see Wonder Woman for the umpteenth time instead.
35
Now if only Fox would relinquish rights to the FF so we could have an epic movie version of the classic 60's comics Battle of the Century FF#25. Fingers crossed.
9
Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis The Wise? I thought not. It’s not a story the Jedi would tell you. It’s a Sith legend. Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith, so powerful and so wise he could use the Force to influence the midichlorians to create life… He had such a knowledge of the dark side that he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying. The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural. He became so powerful… the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught his apprentice everything he knew, then his apprentice killed him in his sleep. Ironic. He could save others from death, but not himself.
2
After seeing Wonder Woman, I don't need any other "super hero" movies...
26
Seriously How Many Times are they going to reboot the Spiderman story? Could not be more bored with the idea of seeing yet another version of this. Ugh.
24
Ditto. In this 3.0, Peter Parker has a pal/lab partner. Yo -- the original stories did NOT have such a character.
Then, again, in "Star Trek: Beyond," New Spock mourned Old Spock (as we all do).
Then, again, in "Star Trek: Beyond," New Spock mourned Old Spock (as we all do).
1
"The title of the likable, amusing “Spider-Man: Homecoming” indicates that this is a return, though to what exactly? To Queens? To youth? " actually it's called 'Spiderman Homecoming' because Sony pictures which owned the rights to Spiderman ceded rights to Columbia and Marvel pictures, which allows the action to take place inside the great Marvel universe. Of course in the comics this is the way to has always been, but it got twisted up because various studios got involved. I hope it stays this way, love to see Spidey take on the Hulk-his foil in many of the comics. Spidey loves to kid around and the Hulk has no sense of humor and just wants to smash everything. Seeing beloved heroes interact is a real treat for the fans.
9
Sony owns/is Colombia, so there was no ceding of rights between the two.
1
If you guys meant "fourth" as a reference to previous Spider-Man films by Sony, then I think that's incorrect. This would be the 6th film. 3x w/ Tobey Maguire, 2x w/ Andrew Garfield.
3
Seems right to me. The reviewer is referencing the first films in each of the two previous incarnations.
1
Glad to hear that Michael Keaton's good! I'm always more interested in who the villain is in a superhero movie.
23
I'm not sure if this is a review of the movie, or a vehicle for the reviewer to vent her disdain towards the Marvel movies and the business machinery behind them. Perhaps future reviews could focus on the merits of the movie instead of bemoaning the corporate interests that produce them.
63
I'm pretty sure what she is doing is disdaining, or lamenting, the extent to which the "business machinery" of the Marvel movies (or any franchise) seems to get in the way of "the merits of the movie." She wants the film to stand alone, but the demands placed on it by the requirements of the overall franchise get in the way. In other words, she'd gladly just discuss the merits of the movie, if she felt the movie stood on its own merits.
47
Zing
Also, how can you have someone credibly reviewing a movie set in the MCU that admits they don't care about the lore, the interconnectiveness and the expanse of the MCU?
22