Tom Holland was Born to be Spider-Man | Homecoming Review

"Writers live twice," -Natalie Goldberg

I almost had to disown my family at the end of Spider-Man: Homecoming. Because they were pretty disappointed with it. 

And I believe I've determined why: They expected a traditional superhero movie/origin story featuring someone in their late twenties. 

But alas, onto my thoughts. 

The Bad

1. Aunt May

Aunt May is an incredibly important relationship not only in the comics but in the other Spider-Man franchises. The movie attempts to make her cool and attractive, but it falls flat because this new interpretation of Aunt May has no depth. If she did, the movie didn't give her the time to grow into the character she should have been. The relationships that matter to Peter Parker are some of the strongest drivers in the story, but they missed the mark on this one. 

2. The Love Interest

Liv . . . Liz . . . whoever the love interest was, was terribly uninteresting. They had no chemistry together, and the only thing that would change about the story is that the villian would be less interesting. Liz wasn't a character - she only served to add conflict to Peter and add depth to the Vulture. Maybe the point was that Liz took a backseat, but she was terribly bland and only utilized as a plot device. 


The Good

1. Tom Holland

This man was born to play Spider-Man. He's got the innocence and youth of Tobey Maguire, and the humor and depth of Andrew Garfield. Not to mention he's the best actor of all three of them, with Garfield a close second. 

2. The Setting

Homecoming nailed the unique atmosphere of Spider-Man, which is high school. My mom didn't like it because she thought they focused too much on that in the beginning, however, I found it entirely engaging and realistic, because we rarely see superheroes in a setting so mundane. It added to the appeal and the realistic feel of this movie. Of course, these would be the challenges Peter would have to face. 


3. The Comedy

Unarguably the funniest of all of the Spider-Man movies, this is the most obvious improvement over the other franchises. The humor is never shoehorned in either, just to make sure the audience is paying attention. It's smart and arises directly from the plot and characters. The humor also fits the context of the characters and setting, albiet making it not exactly kid-friendly. The most poignant thing about it, though, is how much it pokes fun at the world they live in. Seemingly mundane things are hilarious to us because it takes place in the MCU, namely Cap's amazing cameos. 


4. The Tone

The tone was also appropriate, unlike many other Spider-Man films. The first tended to be corny and garishly colorful, and the reboot was almost too gritty and dark. However, this film has its moments of humor and its moments of intense grit and its moment of heart. The tone never felt unbalanced or unfitting with the context or the genre. 

5. Peter's Character Arc

Spider-Man: Homecoming is a genre-bending movie, but one that also knows and appeals to its core audience. Peter's character arc is something new to be seen in superhero movies. It's less about Peter trying to prove himself worthy of being an Avenger - what it might seem to be on the outside - and more of Peter trying to find himself inside and outside of the Spiderman suit, and trying to fit in. It truly fits the film and the context of the character. 

~

I could talk forever about the great parts of Spider-Man: Homecoming. However, if two elements were changed, this movie would be a 10/10.

~The WordShaker

Why I Don't Like Tony Stark

"Characters do not change.  Opinions alter, but characters are only developed," -Benjamin Disraeli

Tony Stark, brilliant mastermind.  Playboy turned superhero. While the character was created for the specific purpose of making an unlikable person a likable character, I do not find him very likable past tolerance and the occasional chuckle at his wit. And there's one key reason why. 

Tony's only redeeming qualities are his wit, his ability to make someone laugh.  His sense of humor is enjoyable, 'only-funny-because-it's-true' kind of thing, while being self-deprecating. His quick, deadpan responses make him an enthralling watch, my own mind racing to catch up to the challenge. But the reason that he's not a deep, beautiful, and complex character is because he shows no vulnerability. 

We attach to the characters we do because of a deep human need to be understood, to empathize and overcome. Steve Rogers is a relatable character because we see the greatness in him, and realize that we have the potential to be just as great.  And despite all of the amazing things Steve can do, he is irrevocably and humbly human. His reaction to Bucky's 'death' is much like anyone else's grief of a death.  And the horror and shock of Bucky's return is felt on a deep level, resounding with every once of betrayal we've felt. Natasha Romanoff is strong and resillient, yet is ultimately taking a path well tread of redemption.  Because that is all we aspire to be.  Natasha is relatable because her journey of hard-earned redemption, turning from bad to good, is one we all can relate to on some level. 

But again, almost nothing about Stark is relatable.  He's a billionare, which 99 percent of the population can only dream of that kind of money. He's a genius, which on some level is an appointed title, but, really, how many geniuses do you know?  Sure, an awful part of us wishes we had all that money and alcohol and girls, but is that gluttony and lust something to aspire to?  Characters are supposed to relate to us and lift us up at the same time.  Tony Stark does none of this. 

Tony Stark seems the least human out of all of the Avengers.  Even Thor, a god, whose human side was displayed beautifully in his first movie, has tapped into his human potential more than the actual homosapien Stark has. The reason Stark has nothing of value to offer as a character is because we never become personal with him.  We never sympathize with him because he just seems to perfect and sassy all of the time.  We never cheer for him because the stakes never seem high enough. We never can develop a personal character to receiver relationship (yes, that's a thing) because he is never emotionally or physically vulnerable, making him not a strong or likable in terms of any definition of the word 'character'. 

#SorryNotSorry

~The WordShaker