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

Avengers vs. X-Men: 6 Reasons Why the X-Men Franchise is Superior in Every Way

In light of the new Avengers movie coming out, I decided to go against the flow and tell all of you why the X-Men are leaps and bounds better than the Avengers.  Now, the Avengers aren't bad by any means, but the X-Men are just so much better. And here are my 6 reasons why. 

*Disclaimer: My knowledge of the Avengers and X-Men extends just beyond the movies, so I will only be discussing  mainly the movie realm.  If you don't like that, then you can write your own article with all your fancy comic-book knowledge.*

SPOILERS, duh. 

3 Reasons why The X-Men are Superior to the Avengers

1. The Wonderful Characters
The complexity of Wolverine, the elusiveness of Mystique, the vile nature of Magneto, the goofy Quicksilver, the classy and cool Professor X.  The characters in the X-Men are diverse and real.  Being more general, the X-Men are ten times more relatable because, in the end, they are just real people with genetic mutations.  Rogue is just a teenage girl who cannot have what every person needs - human contact. Charles Xavier was just a boy when he thought he was going crazy when he heard everyone else's thoughts. Mystique is not comfortable in her own skin because she can be in anyone's skin. Peter Maximoff is just a teenager who uses his super-speed to steal 2 liter bottles of coke and pull pranks. Erik Lehnsherr is only evil because an evil man who hated mutants killed his mother. All of these things make the X-Men just a band of ordinary people with extraordinary powers in extraordinary situations. And we cannot forget the amazing bromance between Charles and Erik. In the end, the X-Men are less super, and more heroes. 


2. The Science Behind the X-Men is Much More Interesting and Realistic
I like science fiction.  But when I watch/read science fiction, I want it to be somewhat plausible.  Hey, that's just me. I have always found the science behind the X-Men to be much more cohesive and realistic.  Society is just on the cusp of genetic discovery, and we have been for the last ten-or-so years.  Genetic testing and research has been progressing for leaps and bounds, and since the X-Men focuses on this and takes a very relevant topic to today and puts a science-fiction spin on it, the X-Men in general prove to have more of an interesting concept that can be applied to today, whereas the Avengers and their powers are more scattered and not as cohesive as the X-Men. 

3. The Gritty, Realistic Spin on Superheroes in the 21st Century
The mutants pose a threat because of their evolutionary diversity and dominance. And the Avengers pose a threat because of their powers and the mass destruction they can truly cause.  Except the difference between the X-Men and the Avengers is society's reaction to them. Society's reaction to the mutants is realistic, with fear.  The government gets involved and they are trying to change them because they different.  And nearly anything different poses a threat. This serves as a metaphor to how people react to things they don't understand: with fear and hostility. 

The mutants have powerful, human reactions as well. Rouge hates her powers.  She hates it so much that she gives in, and takes the antidote that changes her so she can have human contact. And Erik - he gets egotistical.  He lords his powers over everyone, and puts himself on a pedestal.  Some use their powers for good, and some for bad.  And the innate motivations they have behind their choice for good or evil are clear cut and relatable. 

Another theme I enjoy is that it's less about fighting evil, but about fighting the evil within.  Think of it as two sides to the same coin. There are good mutants, there are bad mutants.  There are mutants that don't care.  There are mutants who hide.  There are many shades of gray within the spectrum, which is much more realistic than the conflicts within the Avengers.  It is always good versus evil, nearly no shades of gray.  While I will admit that Age of Ultron better displays this concept, it is still nothing like the X-Men franchise.  Because the X-Men is about those shades of grey, and how sometimes good and evil are just two sides of the same coin. 

3 Reasons why The Avengers aren't as Amazing as Everyone Says

1. The Unfortunate Character Archetypes

Captain America, the fearless leader. Tony Stark, the smart one with a mouth. Hulk, the strong one. Black Widow, the girl. And Thor . . . whatever Thor does. Unfortunately, the characters in the Avengers have always come off to me as cardboard, only standing out by their fancy outfits and their powers.  Not by who they really are, by but what they can do.  They have always appeared to me as an elite breed of humans who aren't like me, which, in turn, make them much less relatable. Relatability is what makes or breaks a character, and, in my opinion, all of the Avengers are broken.  It's not that I don't feel for them, but they seem too plastic and molded to pop off of the page as individuals. 

2. The Boring Villains and Plots

Yeah, everyone loves Loki.  But why?  Only because he's attractive. Loki never seemed a force to be reckoned with - Thor could defeat him in his sleep.  Unfortunately, I never cared why he was evil, what he was doing.  Also, I never doubted that the Avengers could defeat him.  Ultron did seem like much more of a threat, but again, he lacked things that made a villain convincing and truly evil. 

And here, I just have one question: If the villain is already so evil and powerful, why do they need these huge armies of thousands that can be taken out by the Avengers with one punch of their fists?  As a distraction, probably, but that is just a weak plot device that every villain uses - and hardly ever works. 

To me, the Avengers always seemed to reliant on the action sequences.  The plot moved along based on the scenes with action, not the scenes based on plot or character development.  The heavy emphasis on the action shows how weak that the Avengers franchise truly is, whereas I was never under that impression in any other Marvel franchise. 

And Ultron.  Oh, Ultron. You were much better than Loki - whom everyone liked only because he was 'beautiful' - but not what was needed here. The Avengers are strong - they're human and they're flawed and they are a band of heroes who really need a strong villain to single-handedly oppose them.  Whereas I saw Ultron as a physical threat, I never saw in him the depth that a villain needs to resonate with me.  He was sadistic and menacing, but he never rang truly evil.  The best antagonists are just as human as the protagonists, but they have given in to their dark side because of internal or external forces.  And I very much enjoy that concept in a villain and a hero.  But the thing that made Ultron not stick in my memory was because he wasn't human.  He had no moral compass, he had nothing he cared about because he was a robot, he had no back story, and that's the problem with Ultron.  He was never a mental or emotional force to be reckoned with.  Sometimes, he was so sadistic, that he made me cringe and draw back.  So no, Marvel, you can do so much better with your villains.  

Take Magneto for example.  Magneto is one of the most amazing and flawless villains Marvel has ever created.  He is the main antagonist in most of the X-Men films, but he is never boring. Just, I don't even think I can fit the amazingness of Magneto into one blog post, so just, read up on him yourself and learn how to appreciate a great villain. 

Also, I have a post coming up about my two favorite villains, so stay tuned for that. 

3. The Glossy, Gaudy Universe, which Turned Sadistic in AoU

I feel like that the Avengers are more for kids, but X-Men is more for the mature teens and adults. All of the Avengers are elevated like gods, with their fancy suits and colors.  The Avengers are polished to a shine, and, I've noticed that they are over-glorified by the society that they save.  But I don't think that that's how our society would react.  Our society as a whole would be afraid.  Maybe the children and the individual people they save would love them, but the adults that are reading about them in the news, the government observing this, they would be suspicious, they would be afraid because of the power and advantage they have over the average Joe. This is one of the reasons that I like the Spider-Man movie franchise, is because they touch on this subject frequently. But the Avengers are these glossy, perfect people despite their pasts. 

And moving on to Age of Ultron.  I feel like the directors realized that the Avengers were lighter and fluffier than other Marvel movies, so they darkened the tone - a lot. Unfortunately, this didn't sell with me so well.  I found that I left the movie feeling depressed.  But with the X-Men movies, I never felt that way.  With all of the bad things that happened, I always left with that feeling of a greater hope. 

And we cannot forget the unfortunate case of Quicksilver and Quicksilver

Again, X-Men trumps the Avengers here. I felt that, however much they tried, the Avenger's Quicksilver, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, stayed flat to me. He always appeared to be just Wanda's minion, who, in turn, was just Ultron's minion. Pietro never had anything to him that made him jump off the screen.  Unfortunately, he was always just kind of . . . there.  He never had any stand-alone quality like all of the main Avengers have. The only reason I was sad that he died, because I felt deeply for Scarlet Witch, although I will admit that it was very tragic how he died. But his death was his only redeeming quality. And his poorly constructed back story only served as a plot device to get Wanda and Pietro on Ultron's side, yet this was entirely disregarded when  the Maximoff twins joined the Avengers. 

Peter Maximoff, played by Evan Peters, raced off the screen.  He stole every scene he was in, but was unfortunately shoved under the rug when his part of the story was done for. But Evan Peter's interpretation of Quicksilver was very entertaining and well done. He seemed very realistic to me, because he was portrayed as your average teenage boy, who just happened to have super speed. Like any teenager would, he used his powers not for good or bad, but for his own personal gain. This opened the X-Men up to the possibility that there are people like this all over the X-Men universe, making it down-to-earth. 

However, Taylor-Johnson and Peters both were given two different interpretations of a character, but the X-Men Quicksilver surpassed the Avenger's one. 

Again, these are all my interpretations and opinions. This is 100% biased because this is me and this is what I like.  But, in the end, The Avengers is a fun, action-packed movie for entertainment purposes, and Age of Ultron takes it to a darker level, and the X-Men is a gritty, intelligent movie that studies the human condition and hypothetical genetic mutations. But how much does it really matter, anyways? 

Hope you enjoyed this, nerds and geeks far and wide,

~The WordShaker