Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) Review

"Can't you just be a friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man?" - Tony Stark.

I don't know if you've noticed at all, but Spider-Man's been in a lot of films in the twentieth century. We've seen Sam Raimi's trilogy from 2002-2007 to Marc Webb's reboot and sequel in 2012 and 2014, respectively. Here we are in 2017, and everyone's favourite wall-crawler is still a popular cinema attraction, with his latest solo outing being Spider-Man: Homecoming, following the successful re-introduction of the character in last year's Captain America: Civil War. So, now that Spider-Man is an integral part of the ever expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe, can he serve up another fun adventure with everything that makes the character great (see 2004's Spider-Man 2), or does this new entry get lost in its own web of plot and big comic book characters (see The Amazing Spider-Man 2)?

Skipping the origin story we are all familiar with, we join Peter Parker (Tom Holland) after the events of Civil War, with him already comfortable with how to use his powers, but still struggling to balance his life with school and superhero business. Seeking further opportunities to impress Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), Peter's wish is fulfilled when an arms dealing gang emerge selling hi-tech weaponry, lead by the bitter Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton). Tagging along for the ride are Peter's best friend Ned (Jacob Batalon) and crush Liz (Laura Harrier), as Peter's pursuit of Toomes (aka Vulture) puts the lives of the people he cares about at risk. With Tony Stark forced to intervene, Peter must learn to cope without his gadget-laden costume and prove he really does have what it takes to be an Avenger in order to stop Toomes and live-up to his responsibilities as Spider-Man.

Having already seen Holland in the role in Civil War, Homecoming gives him the chance to fully become Spider-Man, and it certainly pays off. Holland has plenty of charisma when swinging around and fighting crime as the famous wall-crawler, but he is also allowed to shine as Peter Parker thanks to the film's style of being a high-school comedy with superhero action. Much of the focus falls on his friendship with Ned and his crush on popular girl Liz, which offers up plenty of humorous scenarios. Holland carries all of this extremely well, remaining likeable and engaging and a more than worthy Spider-Man. He brings out the fun side of the character without it ever becoming too cheesy, which is exactly how the character should be done in my opinion. Ned is a very typical sideman/nerdy best friend character, but at least gets some funny one-liners and helps keep the film's light tone intact. He never becomes irritating and he turns out to be a valuable partner in helping Spider-Man save the day. Liz, however, is just OK. She isn't really given a whole lot to do other than look pretty and have Peter stare at her. Harrier and Holland do at least have decent chemistry when together, but there isn't enough time invested in this to make me care too much about the character.

But like with any Spider-Man film, the aspect I was most looking forward to was the villain. I've been waiting to see Vulture in a live-action film for a long time now, and when it was announced that Michael Keaton (still the best Batman in my opinion) was cast, I thought he was the perfect choice. Keaton is the best thing in the film for me because you can tell he's having fun being threatening and flying around in his winged costume. I was smiling every time he got angry at his men for their failed attempts to stop Spider-Man, it reminded me how enjoyable villains in these films can be when you have a great actor with plenty of enthusiasm for the role. There is however, a flaw with Homecoming's set-up for the character. Toomes isn't given much of a personal connection with Spider-Man, nor are his motivations explored in any detail. Only towards the end does he properly meet Peter face-to-face, which means that any prior confrontations between the two felt rather empty to me. Had the film dedicated more time to seeing why Toomes turns to a life of crime and have him interact with Peter more, there could have been some good drama. Instead, Holland and Keaton aren't allowed to dig into the conflict of their respective characters until the film's third act, and by then it's too late to be totally invested.

Where the film fell down for me somewhat was some of the supporting characters, namely two of the other students. Michelle (Zendaya) and Flash (Tony Revolori) exist to provide humour, in a film that already has plenty, and they show up way too many times. The running joke of Michelle being the awkward outcast got old fast, and Flash just came off as lame, hardly someone to match Peter physically or intellectually (despite the film's efforts to display the latter). It's implied that Michelle will have a greater role in future Spider-Man films, and her character really needs to be given some depth and intrigue if that's to be the case. Of course, Peter's loyal Aunt, May Parker (Marisa Tomei) is present, and she at least gets her chance to show how supportive she is without becoming overly preachy. She doesn't give Peter all the answers to his problems, instead showing enough support in order for him to work things out for himself. I really admire this choice because as an audience we want to see the hero rise to the challenge and not have things worked out for him.

But as fun as the film is, it all feels very safe. There is a lack of edge, which I think comes from the handling of the hero/villain relationship. Other Spider-Man films have demonstrated the dangers of having this much power at such a young age more convincingly, and have given us some incredible action sequences as well. Take Spider-Man 2 (2004), for example. We see Peter struggling to cope with his responsibilities that he actually quits being Spider-Man. After a long absence, he makes a spectacular comeback and battles his nemesis in a thrilling sequence on a train. In Spider-Man: Homecoming, the final battle has a good enough scenario, but it isn't used to its full potential. Spidey battles the Vulture on an aeroplane, but the whole thing looks unrealistically "loose". Referring back to Spider-Man 2, the action feels like it has weight and physicality, almost as if you can feel every punch and kick, whereas the fighting in Homecoming looks more digital and less real. I personally prefer the fight scenes in films to actually look like they could happen, even in a crazy scenario such as Spider-Man 2's train battle, and so Homecoming unfortunately falls flat against its predecessors in this department.

Whilst it has a great lead and is an overall fun time, Spider-Man: Homecoming doesn't feel all-that fresh. I know a lot of superhero films follow the same formula, but Spider-Man has always stood out to me as a hero who can have a great mix of fun and edge. There is certainly the former in this case, but I still felt the film lacked a good dynamic between the hero and villain, as well as having a supporting cast that I totally cared about. If you've enjoyed the other MCU, you'll be fine with this. For me, Spider-Man was my childhood superhero, and he's still yet to have a better outing than Sam Raimi's second take thirteen years ago.

Tobey Maguire vs. Andrew Garfield: Who was the better Peter Parker/Spiderman?

So, the Spiderman franchise is being rebooted. For the second time in six years (2018 is the proposed year the new film shall be released)! Tom Holland will play the Web-slinger, and the film will be set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But how will Holland measure up against the two actors who have played the character on film? Lets take a look at Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield, and determine who, for now, is the better Peter Parker/Spiderman.

First, Peter Parker. This is where analysing who is better in the role is really tough, as they have to be both convincing as nerdy high-schooler Peter Parker, and then be convincing as a superhero. With the Maguire trilogy of films (2002-2007), there is definitely more focus on Peter's outsider status, with him being picked on throughout the first film's opening 15 minutes, and then later getting into a fight with school bully Flash Thompson (Joe Manganiello). He is shown to be clumsy by nature in the second film, even after he gains his superpowers. He fails at his job as a pizza delivery boy and fails to stand up for himself when confronted by the manager. Personality wise, Maguire's Peter Parker is kind hearted, but very shy, and so he's an easy target for the bullies. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that even though he lives right next door to his love interest, Mary-Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), he is unable to bring himself to asking her out. In the first film, I was totally convinced with the portrayal of the character, and Maguire brings out the weaknesses of the character very well. With Andrew Garfield in the newest incarnation, there is one fundamental problem with how Peter is presented: he's too cool. This kid would not be bullied at school, despite the fact the film tries its best to display intelligence as a nerdy trait (Einstein posters on his bedroom wall etc.). When Peter confronts Flash in The Amazing Spiderman (2012), he stands up to him before he gets his superpowers. Granted he confronts him again later in the film as he is learning about his new powers, but for me, Peter Parker shouldn't be the one standing up to bullies. Its his lack of courage to begin with that makes his transformation into Spiderman more awe-inspiring. 

Garfield's Peter Parker is also very cocky, with him obtaining a pass to a science demonstration without his name on the list, just by simply taking an ID badge and smiling confidently at the receptionist. To make up for his obviously un-nerdy persona, Peter acts even more awkwardly around his love interest (Gwen Stacy, played by Emma Stone), but it still isn't enough to convince me that this guy would get picked on. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Garfield's performance, but when compared to Maguire, its the latter that fits the criteria for the character of Peter Parker more. Of course, one of the biggest parts of Peter's story in both films is his relationship with his Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson and Martin Sheen in each respective series). In both films, Peter unintentionally plays a big part in the character's death, with him refusing to be a good samaritan and letting a criminal get away, which leads to Uncle Ben being shot. This is the big emotional moment of both series, and for me, the writing behind Peter in the Maguire series is what gives him a big advantage in this comparison. After gaining his powers, Maguire's Peter enters a wrestling tournament and wins a large cash prize, which he hopes to buy a car with to impress Mary-Jane. However, the crooked manager of the tournament refuses to pay, and so Peter doesn't intervene when he is robbed at gun-point. When this results in Uncle Ben's murder, it is a lot more powerful because Peter has acted selfishly towards Uncle Ben in a prior scene by refusing to listen to his advice. Combining that with his pride of not interfering with the manager being robbed, makes for a greater tragic moment as Peter realises what his selfishness has caused. In The Amazing Spiderman, Garfield's Peter refuses to listen to Uncle Ben in a similar manner. However, his confrontation with an employee at a shop that leads to Uncle Ben being shot is very unconvincing. In the first series, Peter refuses to act due to not being paid money to impress a girl. In the newest series, Uncle Ben is killed simply because Peter didn't have enough money to buy a chocolate milk. It just isn't as dramatic and feels forced, whereas in the Maguire series the confrontation is more intense and we get a clearer depiction of what can happen if Peter uses his powers for his own ends.

As Spiderman, both portrayals have their particular strengths and weaknesses. One could argue that because Maguire is so convincing as the unpopular kid, he isn't as convincing as a superhero, whereas Garfield's established cockiness makes for a more obvious character that would go around fighting crime. What works best about Maguire's Spiderman is that he never comes across as overpowered, making for more suspenseful encounters between Spiderman and his enemies. Take the fight in the first film for example, the final encounter between Spiderman and the Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe). Green Goblin beats him to within an inch of his life, which makes for Spiderman's resurgence more spectacular, and so means that we root for him more. Unfortunately, in the first film especially, Maguire is handed some painfully corny dialogue to deliver as Spiderman. Although Spiderman has always said one-lines throughout his history, some of the dialogue here is painfully bad, but also hilariously bad. My particular favourite is this exchange between Spiderman and the Green Goblin from the first film:

Green Goblin: "What about my generous proposal? Are you in, or are you out?

Spiderman: "It's you who's out, Gobby... out of your mind!

Having this kind of dialogue really downplays any seriousness that should be felt when Spiderman has to save the day. Granted, there is a limit to how seriously one can portray a superhero, especially something as un-realistic as Spiderman. However, when comparing the two franchise's portrayal, Garfield seems to have the better writing behind him and more presence. In both films in The Amazing Spiderman series, Garfield's Spiderman displays the same intense attitude as his alter-ego, and so is a more of a threat to criminals when given his superpowers. He is far more intimidating, but also more humorous without ever coming across as corny. This is all displayed in a scene from the first film, when Spiderman confronts a criminal who bears close resemblance to Uncle Ben's killer. He jokingly webs him to the wall, dancing around and laughing. However, he quickly changes his mood and squares up to him. Upon realising he isn't the killer, rather than simply letting him go, he warns him that things could have "gotten a lot worse". Garfield's Spiderman isn't flawless though, with the removal of his mask being done so often in the first film, that it becomes almost comical. I'm willing to overlook the removal of the mask by the villains and the police, but Spiderman deliberately reveals his identity TWICE within mere minutes! In the second incident, it is to help a calm a young boy who is trapped in a car suspended from a bridge. Despite the silliness of him removing his mask, the scene is another example of why, for me, Garfield is the superior Spiderman. Throughout most of the sequence, Spiderman never loses his cool, constantly encouraging the boy when helping him escape. Maguire's Spiderman seemed to always shout and sound fearful. Although I cite the more human element of Maguire's Spiderman as a strength, in the moments of him rescuing someone, he seems less reliable when compared to the more level-headed Andrew Garfield Spiderman. 

To conclude. though I enjoy both actor's portrayal of each persona, I believe Andrew Garfield just about edges out Maguire in this comparison. Despite Maguire being the more convincing Peter Parker, Garfield's Spiderman comes across as the more heroic. When things got tough, you never doubted that he wouldn't pull through and be victorious, whereas Maguire's Spiderman gave up being Spiderman in the second film simply down to the stress of trying to balance his lifestyle. Garfield's Peter Parker also has his flaws that help to aid his transformation into Spiderman in the same way that Maguire's did, meaning that he too can be relateable and gain the audience's favour. I look forward to seeing how Tom Holland will portray both the personalities of Peter Parker and Spiderman , and am excited to see what possibilities await for the character, as he joins the ever expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe.