Batman (1989, 30th anniversary screening)
Cert: 12A / 126 mins / Dir. Tim Burton / Trailer
Well, it was my birthday last week and as if to hammer the point home, time is teaching me I'm now of an age where I can go to 30th anniversary screenings in full nostalgia mode, having attended the cinema to watch the movie the first time round, too. Tim Burton's Batman ushered in the age of me regularly Going To The Pictures with my friends*1. I didn't live particularly close to a cinema, and movies before this tended to either be family outings or even just waiting for the VHS (and bear in mind that back in those days, the journey to the small screen took around a year).
MACHINE Batman also drew me into the multimedia marketing machine surrounding its release. The specially produced comic adaptation featured scenes and character likenesses based on stills from the film, and along with the high-contrast, tonally-blended, full colour printing it was leagues ahead of the rapid-fire, block-colour-and-halftone pulp Marvel fare I'd been used to previously. I loved comics anyway (mainly Marvel, although that stands to this day), but this was in indicator that they could be more.
And that score. Danny Elfman's iconic work here was the first time outside of John Williams' Star Wars that a movie soundtrack had really excited me, one I could listen to separately and still clearly evoke the imagery inside my mind. It was the album which made me understand the role that the right music can play in enhancing a film while adding to the overall identity. A far cry from Williams' equally superb work for Superman, there were no romantic overtones to this new Batman theme, just a pounding, dynamic urgency.
PUGH Prior to 1989, our superheroes had arrived onscreen clad in brightly coloured spandex (a reflection of their comic origins, to be fair). Batman rocked up in black, bulletproof rubber body armour, patrolling the streets of a Gotham City which looks for all the world like Blade Runner's Los Angeles if it had become run-down before the off-world boom. There's very little daylight in the movie, every character seemingly a nocturnal creature or one who just doesn't need to sleep. With 1980s tech meeting 1940s wardrobe and a self-awareness which that's ahead of its time, Burton's work is a great foundation for the Nolan retelling.
Along with writers Warren Skaaren and Sam Hamm, Burton brings a theatrical, borderline pantomime, classically gothic take on the anti-hero, flamboyantly dark and knowingly playful (a point which went over my head when watching this as a youngster). There's a lightness of touch that rarely feels the need to rely on outright gags, but coasts along with a wry subversiveness. The film broods but it never wallows. I'm looking at you, DC.
CUTHBERT Michael Keaton may not be the most fearsome Batman, but he's the most accessible Bruce Wayne and is far and away the best combination of the two. He brings a fragility to both halves of the role that other actors have been unable to accomplish - or worse still, just haven't attempted. We shouldn't sympathise with either a billionaire businessman or a surly vigilante, but we're on this guy's side all the way through. Keaton shows us Batman's vulnerability and determination, not his inflexible strength. As well as showing us how Batman does his thing, Keaton gives us a window into why.
It's also worth noting that Keaton and Michael Gough make the most endearing Bruce/Alfred combination to date. There's genuine warm emotion there on both sides, and we understand their relationship instantly. Y'know, rather than having Michael Caine trying to remember how to cry while Christian Bale looks faintly embarrassed*2.
DIBBLE And put your hand up if you're old enough to remember the clamour of "yeah, this new movie Batman is DARK like it's meant to be, man! This is how grim the original comics were!", while Jack Nicholson prances around in a purple suit with Prince playing in the background. Nicholson is terrible of course (his usual form), but his performance as The Joker is definitely what this movie needs. It only really tips over in the scenes he shares with Jack Palance, where they're trying to out-overact each other onscreen and are somehow both succeeding.
The pacing of the first half is masterful, perfectly formed and spinning the plates of its main characters with care and precision. The story begins to run out of steam once the setup is accomplished, dragging its heels in bringing everything to the cathedral-top conclusion, but it's so much fun that this doesn't matter. On the whole, it's still a hell of a lot more focused than a lot of other Batman appearances, even (let's face it, especially) within its own series.
GRUBB And the remastering on display for this presentation is absolutely gorgeous. Crystal clear and with vivid colours, the care which has gone into this is a credit to all concerned. Even when you notice the very-obvious miniatures (ie when the chemical plant is exploding), the craft which has gone into assembling them is still evident, first and foremost. There are a couple of very brief shots which don't seem to have been re-touched, but the optimist in me things that this is to reinforce the amazing work throughout the rest of the film. That said, it's been a long time since I watched this (to my shame), so those moments may always have looked terrible.
Batman 30th anniversary screenings and vintage marathons are happening across the country via the major chains and a few of the independents. If you can, do…
Er… Batman films? I mean it's definitely also Tim Burton™, but that aspect is far more restrained here than other work where he's allowed free rein. If anything, this makes Tim work harder to produce a better film, but there we go.
If you get the opportunity, hell yeah.
It is. (even though I don't have this at home as noted, so who am I to make recommendations?)
*1 There were a few sporadic others before this - Spaceballs being one, although we don't talk about that film here - but Batman was the opening of a door, so to speak. [ BACK ]
*2 Look, I do love the Nolan films and I respect the Caine's canon as much as anyone, but he's generally not a good actor. He can act well, he just usually chooses (and is somehow permitted) not to. [ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Dumbo (2D)
Cert: PG / 112 mins / Dir. Tim Burton / Trailer
On the seafront in Margate, Kent, stands a pub. It is a Wetherspoon's pub. It is not one of Wetherspoon's better pubs. Whereas the company is known for renovating locally notable buildings while retaining a unique sense of character (alongside the corporate conformity, of course), this pub was originally a Victorian building which then served as a large amusement arcade until the late 1990s. As a result, there was comparatively little to 'restore' in 2001, and so it's a modern establishment with little-to-no period detailing, complete with the ambience which is to be found in many (although not all) of the chain's hostelries. The pub is called The Mechanical Elephant.
The Mechanical Elephant is named after an oddity from the mid 20th century on Margate seafront. Serving as a ride-on attraction for holidaymakers and daytrippers, an engineered exo-frame housed an engine/pulley system at the the 1:1 scale of a full-sized elephant. This modern marvel was a great novelty, a fun way to spend disposable income providing the customers didn't think about its macabre origins. An automated facsimile of life, lumbering, repetitive and incapable of genuine emotion. Although it strikes a discordant note, in many ways The Mechanical Elephant is an ideal name for the pub.
And in many of those same ways, The Mechanical Elephant is an ideal tagline for Disney's live-action remake of their animated classic, Dumbo.
WRANGLER Expanding on the original tale, our film opens in the aftermath of the First World War, with horse wrangler Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) returning to his travelling home to greet his young daughter Milly (Niko Parker) and son Joe (Finley Hobbins) having lost an arm in the conflict and missing the death of his wife while away. The circus, meanwhile, is in steady decline under the auspices of Max Medici (Danny DeVito), a questionable businessman failing to adjust to changing times. When Max buys a pregnant elephant to inject a bit of tropical variety into the performances, everyone is stunned to discover the baby can actually fly using its outsized ears. Success seems assured.
Word of the novelty quickly spreads, notably to disreputable entrepreneur and next-level showman V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton). He's determined to make his own money off the back of the pachyderm in his 'Dreamland' theme park*1, along with his leading acrobat and confidant, Colette Marchant (Eva Green). Short version: Circus down on luck, elephant flies, bad man thinks 'I'll have a bit of that', drama, salvation, end. All of that isn't new. However, you will believe an elephant can fly. And still somehow find it quite boring.
LEVI It's difficult to know what's gone wrong other than a general lack of effort all round. Danny DeVito is playing this like it's a script read-through, while Colin Farrell is as lost as that wandering accent of his. Michael Keaton and Eva Green are seasoned scenery-chewers of course, but even they've lost their appetite for deconstruction. And it's a dark day in any casting office when Alan Arkin is hired to play Bellowing Alan Arkin™*2.
The story drags its feet considering what a straightforward pantomime the whole thing is, and pretty much all characterisation is telegraphed to the point where there are no twists, corners or even curves down the line. But crucially, there should be an absolute joy in watching an infantilised, anthropomorphic elephant taking to the air in a moment of theatrical danger; instead the spectacle is oddly perfunctory. There's no sense of achievement when Dumbo flies, and the framing feels wrong throughout. We're not in the audience taking in the wonder, but we're not in the air sharing his joy, either*3, we're just 'there' - zipping around from cut to cut without a proper chance to see what's happening. And the sporadic 'Dumbo-cam' which gives us a fleeting phant's-eye view of the aerial world is weird, distracting and completely unnecessary, probably the reason it disappears by the third act.
GEORDIE And it all comes down to TIm Burton. He could ride out that level of gee-whizzery back in the day when he was selling pencil cases to emo kids, but this mainstream shtick plays like a cheap parody of jaded Americana. It's not even like this is textbook-Burton where we can shrug at having seen big eyes, stripy fabric and soaring crane-shots done before. All of those are present, but it really feels like Tim's just not interested here.
But Dumbo himself is great. There's just not enough Dumbo for a film which is called Dumbo. And ultimately, why make a 'live-action' film when the only endearingly human aspects come from the CGI elephant? The film is difficult to actively dislike, but it shouldn't feel like an effort to enjoy a Disney adventure.
If anything, I'm just disappointed that Dumbo wasn't set twenty years later and had the Michael Keaton character and his wondrous cultural extravaganza turned into Howard Stark's Expo. At least that way Disney could have brought the whole thing under one umbrella…
It's closer to Tomorrowland than Batman Returns, but has heavy-handed elements of both.
If you're going to watch it at all, watch it big I guess.
*3 Credit where it's due, the final shot of the film is great. But in a movie about a flying elephant, having to wait two hours to really enjoy the flying elephant is taking the piss, frankly. [ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
As the BBFC card boldly proclaimed "American Assassin: 18, strong, sadistic and bloody violence", a hush descended over the not inconsiderably-sized audience. The film, dealing as it does with themes of terrorism, revenge and moral accountability opened with a disco-backed montage of worldwide political unrest and narrated by President Carter's Crisis of Confidence speech.
'Well', I thought, 'this is a very similar start to the still-playing Tom Cruise movie American Made. I can't imagine that it's entirely deliberate but it will be interesting to contrast each film's approach to core values of democracy and intrinsic freedom'. Then within thirty seconds, the scene cut to Tom Cruise sitting in the cockpit of a plane, and half a dozen members of the audience (including me) found ourselves walking jointly toward the foyer to point out that they were playing the wrong film*1.
PROJECTION SCHEDULERS: You'll have to do more than just look at the first word of the title, yeah?*2 Anyway, American Assassin began around two minutes after that.
American Assassin opens with Mitch Rapp (Dylan O'Brien) on holiday with his girlfriend Katrina in the Bahamas, when a terrorist attack kills hundreds on the beach including his beloved. Over the next 18 months, Mitch fuels his grief into working-out, target-practice and infiltrating the terrorist cell he holds responsible, with a view to wiping them out in an act of morally justified revenge*3. But the mission falls at the final hurdle when he inadvertently steps on the toes of a CIA black-ops team, who then recruit Mitch to put his talents to more structured use. Under the charge of Agent Kennedy (Sanaa Lathan) and Agent Hurley (Michael Keaton), Rapp is taken to Rome where the mysterious 'Ghost' (Taylor Kitsch) is assembling a nuclear device for the highest bidder*4…
So, 'the beach-scene' is a powerful start to an intriguing, if uneven, film. It's not quite gleeful in its application of violence, but cinematographer Enrique Chediak works an unflinching camera. The fast-cutting in scenes of gunfire is used to navigate to the shots that hurt, not around them. O'Brien is an incredibly strong lead, too; his best work definitely still to come, I think. And I'd genuinely forgotten what it was like to look forward to a Michael Keaton flick, but this year has been so good to us in that regard. His supporting performance as the Navy Seal turned counter-terrorist is nothing short of masterful. The narrative itself can feel a little heavy-handed, but that's understandable given the subject matter (although from an idealogical point-of-view, the film's first-act is borderline Western propaganda).
It's not all plain-sailing, of course. As arresting as the opening is, once the action hits the streets of Rome it's only two steps away from becoming a Luc Besson thriller with Eli Roth on torture-duty*5. For a story that starts with such urgency, American Assassin quickly takes to treading a well-worn path, with shell-casings in abundance but free of emotional engagement. We need to talk about Taylor Kitsch too, overacting in just about every scene, reminding us why he's been out of the cinematic limelight for so long*6. Together, Kitsch and O'Brien are like two differently-aged versions of the same character. And from a certain point-of-view that's absolutely crucial, but it's also distracting as fuck when you're watching it play out. And naturally, no action-thriller would be complete without a ticking-countdown ending of course, especially if that timer is attached to a nuke*7...
There's the feeling in the final push that American Assassin doesn't have quite as much to say as it thought it did when it stood up and dinged its knife against the glass. But as a hard-edged political action-flick, it's head and shoulders above the rest of its class, and well worth your time for the things it does well…*8
It'll probably work better on a big screen than a small one.
Well it's adapted from a novel (/some novels), so if its aim is "bring a series of books to the big screen in the transparent hope of franchising the fuck out of the property" then it probably does.
It's an incredibly strong turn for everyone involved, but not best...
Nope.
There ain't.
Level 2: Mr Dylan O'Brien was in The Scorch Trials, of course, along with Alan 'K-2SO' Tudyk.
*1 Serious point, though: the BBFC card was for American Assassin - while I know the ads and trailers are interchangeable throughout a film's cinema-run, I thought the BBFC card was hard-coded to the digital print of the film? I've heard of age-inappropriate trailers being screened before, but not this. Projection managers, please tell me how this can happen, thank you. [ BACK ]
*2 Oh and apparently, films beginning with the adjective 'American' (Eg.1, 2, 3, 4, etc) are not all part of one collective continuity. Which is in clear contravention of the law set down by The Rev. Ian Carry-On in 1958 and as such is frankly outrageous. [ BACK ]
*3 And call me cynical, but there doesn't seem to be a huge glut of stories about all the absolute arseholes that must also get killed in terrorist atrocities. I mean statistically, they've got to be there too, right? People are largely awful, after all. Not quite sure how you'd build a compelling film around this, but that's why I'm not a screenwriter. Yet. [ BACK ]
*4 And bonus points for the subliminal Back To The Future reference in the film. At one point we see Taylor Kitsch's character in the back of a transit van, examining a (conspicuously radioactive) antique clock, which he's buying on behalf of Libyan terrorists. In the next scene, Michael Keaton is watching a news bulletin reporting stolen Plutonium. Fantastic stuff. [ BACK ]
*5 Although sorry to be that guy, but the gunshot effects in the beach-scene look shite. In all fairness, I couldn't tell at first-pass if they were prosthetic shite or CGI shite, but the result was much the same. [ BACK ]
*6Spoilers - highlight-to-read:Mind, there's a shot in this of Kitsch's character wearing U.S. Navy-whites as a younger man. Is American Assassin actually an unofficial sequel to Battleship??[ BACK ]
*7Spoilers - highlight-to-read:Right hang on, you're telling me you can detonate a nuclear device in the sea less than five miles off the coast of Italy and everything will be basically fine again within a matter of minutes? OH, OKAY THEN...[ BACK ]
*8 And thank you, dear reader, for reading all of these. You're very patient. [ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
So I went to see Spider-Man again, at London's Leicester Square IMAX*1, this time. And while the film obviously no longer held the element of pleasant surprise for me, I loved it every bit as much. More in some places. There won't be any wanging-great plot spoilers in this piece, but I'll be coasting over some of the events and characters which do and don't appear, hence the spoiler-warning.
[ On a side-note that I may as well slip in here, I loved that before the movie there was an ad for Dell gaming-computers using modified footage from the film. And in that sequence in the movie, you notice that the laptop Peter actually uses in class has the logo obscured. His friend Ned later uses a machine with Dell branding on it, though. Now, given that the current rights-owners to Spidey are the same people who'll work photo-realistic tech-appearances into an animated feature, I think someone in the Sony Brand Placement department is currently furious about the 'deal' that's been struck with Marvel. And I couldn't be happier at that thought. ]
So when I left the cinema after watching Homecomingfor the first time, I felt something which hadn't come over me for quite a while. Excitement. Not the anticipation and intrigue I get before a movie, but the feeling that a huge door has been kicked open and now anything is possible. The endings of Doctor Strange and Guardians of The Galaxy Vol. 2 were satisfying, but this was a buzz I haven't had since the closing moments of Amazing Spider-Man 2 (ironically enough), or Iron Man 3. It was that feeling of wanting to go right back in and watch it again. Immediately. And a few days later when I left the IMAX auditorium*2? There it was again. Outstanding stuff.
At that final shot (of the main film), where Peter Parker has returned home and found the real reward of his labours awaiting him? That look on his face of triumph, humility and acceptance, all at once? The camera panning slowly to the figure behind him, slightly out of focus, and that final line of dialogue? The first tim I saw that, I grinned like an idiot; the second, I had tears in my eyes. At Peter's side, we've taken our first step into a larger world.
The first distinction which makes the film work in a crowded marketplace is that while it's a reboot, it's not an origin-story. Thankfully. Either Marvel are confident in their target audience's familiarity with this flagship super-hero by now*3, or even they don't think they'll get away with telling a variation of the same story for the third time in fifteen years. Narratively, this gives the film a wider scope than many of the series' standalone movies featuring a 'new' hero.
It's also important to note that the new movie isn't 'classic comic' Spider-Man, either in tone or execution, but that's always been the way of the MCU. To take the core traits of the characters and reinvigorate them to fit a new, larger story. Homecoming does this even better than most in the series - Holland is his own version of the web-slinger, but still intrinsically the Parker/Spider-Man we expect. In terms of bringing a character we know into a story we don't and having them interact with the continuity, this is MCU at its absolute finest*4.
Instead we get relatively subtle (if still incredibly direct) cues from the script as to what's brought Parker to our attention this time: He was bitten by a spider (which is now dead), and Aunt May has had a tough old time of things lately (presumably because Uncle Ben is sitting on a cloud somewhere, next to a spider). Peter's climbing and acrobatic skills are inherent to him, he builds his own web-shooters, and everything else comes courtesy of the Stark-engineered suit. But the writers (and even I'm embarrassed to say that there are six of them on this project) don't feel the need to dot-every-i and cross-every-t, just yet. Familiar names like Mary-Jane Watson, J. Jonah Jameson and Gwen Stacy haven't been shoehorned into the story. Just yet. This is MCU Spider-Man, more concerned with its wider tableaux*5 than providing a fan-service checklist of Greatest Hits references*6. Although on a nemesis-level, with Vulture well and truly established, we get Shocker and Scorpion bookmarked in the continuity for future rumbling, as well as a few other character-seeds sewn into the bargain.
But Homecoming isn't just an advert for the next film in the series. The story develops and grows Parker's character rather than just setting it up for something else. Indeed, by the way this chapter is wrapped up (and the credits-stings in particular), you get the feeling that while Marvel are more than happy with the integration between rights-holders, Sony are playing things like they're not sure what happens next. Stark's line about Toomes' crew being 'below the Avengers pay-grade' would seem to imply that Spidey's solo adventures could be Sony-only ventures. Nothing is ruled out, but neither is it writ in stone. The question is, do Sony get to carry on using the Tom Holland Spider-Man in their own standalone movies if they don't include any other MCU trademarks? And the next question is, would we want them to? The Venom movie might go some way to answering those, but according to Marvel producer Kevin Feige, our friendly-neighbourhood web-slinger won't be present for that one. Which feels a bit like making a Joker flick that doesn't also feature Batman; possible, but weird.
And how long will Spidey be around in the MCU timeline? This film doesn't commit to inducting him into the permanent line-up of Earth's Mightiest Heroes, but nor does it write him out of the future, either short or long term. Any future MCU-appearances (even a flash of the suit or mention of a character-name, presumably), will require the ongoing agreement between Marvel Studios and Sony which is currently in place*7 (although Deadpool managed to squeak round this with its heli-carrier appearance), so in for a penny in for a pound, right?
We should anticipate significant spider-presence for the foreseeable future, I think.
In the meanwhile, I'm off to see Homecoming again…
*1 Despite that particular cinema having a constant schedule of films to show in the format, this has been the first movie outside of Star Wars which I've seen (indeed wanted to see) in IMAX. [ BACK ]
*2 The IMAX experience was amazing again, as I expected (indeed, that's why I went). It's so good to see the (almost) ghost-less 3D in its intended colour-range. The big one at Cineworld's Leicester Square is the best screen for audio/visual reproduction, but with some of the worst leg-room I've ever experienced. I'm 5'11", that's not exactly lanky, and even I was getting knee-cramp by the 45 minute mark. [ BACK ]
*3 It should be noted that 2008's The Incredible Hulk played much the same hand, leaving the heavy-lifting of historic exposition largely to the viewer's memory of Bill Bixby, and of the 2003 cinematic offering from Ang Lee. [ BACK ]
*4 Although obviously, The First Avengeris still the greatest Marvel Cinematic Universe movie. Don't bother disagreeing, I will fight you on this. [ BACK ]
*5 It's arguable of course that the original comic Spidey was in the wider Marvel universe to begin with, and the stories still had room to fit those names into their roll-call... [ BACK ]
*6 And that's not to put down Marc Webb's Amazing Spider-Man flicks at all, it's just clear that there was going to have to be a significant style change when Parker stepped into the MCU. [ BACK ]
*7 Although speaking of cross-promotion: during a chase-scene, Peter Parker - who says in the film that he's aged 15 so was born around 2002 - points out that Ferris Bueller's Day Off is "a great movie". That would be the Ferris Bueller's Day Off which was released in 1986, sixteen years before he was born. Yet in Captain America: Civil War, Parker refers to The Empire Strikes Back as "that really old movie", despite it only being six years older than Bueller. The hell, Parker? (although the vintage Kenner X-Wing which hangs in Peter's room could well be an allusion to this apparent anomaly). [ BACK ]
+ + + + +
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
So, no double-bill, no midnight-screening, no cup-toppers or popcorn bucket tie-in merch? This is a suspiciously low-key release from Marvel Studios, particularly considering the friendly neighbourhood webslinger is practically royalty as far as their back-catalogue goes. Did Marvel/Sony perhaps become wary of audience reboot-fatigue? Did they even think were sitting on their first dud? Had the studios viewed the final edits after committing to a release date and wished they could quietly slip the film out to minimise the reputational damage?
6:27pm on the 5th July was to be the moment of truth.
And I say all this as someone who was, if not outright cautious, definitely reserved in my excitement about the project, despite being a fervent armirer of Marvel Studios' output. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is the natural home for Spider-Man of course, but since Sony currently own the film-rights to the character and his immediate co-stars (it's a long story), the cross-functional team-up felt to me a little like an abandonment of an already blossoming franchise. The re-cast Peter Parker took his first steps into Marvel's larger sandpit in last year's Civil War, and while he was a perfectly acceptable addition, there wasn't really enough screentime there for me to be relieved by that point.
But Spider-Man: Homecoming is nothing short of outstanding. Perfect MCU.
The first act feels a little uneven, like breaking in a new pair of shoes. The film opens with the Sony ident and a muted reworking of the Marvel-fanfare playing under it*1; but then we get the Marvel Studios ident in due course, this time with a more familiar accompaniment. And all throughout the first third of the film - despite a liberal dosing of MCU continuity tie-in - this feels very much like a Sony Spider-Man™ flick. And there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not really why the audience are sitting watching. Once key characters and plot-points are established, the film almost instantly feels like part of the wider Marvel universe. It has the wit, humour and heart of the best of Iron Man and Guardians of the Galaxy. And unlike Parker's debut movie appearance last year, there are relatively few established characters on-hand to wave hello to the audience. Homecoming marks its territory quietly and effectively.
And it's not blatant-reboot territory, either. Peter's actual origin story is hinted at but left largely off to one side, and there are a couple of very deft visual homages to both the Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield movies*2. Nothing glaring, they're just there at the right moment. This retooling of the hero isn't as faithful to the spirit of the comics as Sony's 2014 outing, but it's the version of Spidey which the MCU needs. Tom Holland is fantastic as both Parker and Spider-Man, still coming to terms with his powers and his new suit. Opposite him, Michael Keaton is perfectly cast as his nemesis - one of the few MCU villains who has actual character from the beginning. The supporting characters are admittedly less fleshed-out, then again it's not their story (oh and Marvel: "chunky Asian comedy sidekick" worked well with Benedict Wong in Doctor Strange, and Jacob Batalon pulls it off in fine style here, but enough now, yeah?).
Despite the assured success of this particular studio cross-over, I can't see the X-Men making the transition to the MCU any time soon. Deadpool on the other hand, will probably be the subject of some frantic Hollywood phone conversations in the very near future*3.
But it's still sinking in at the moment. I'm sure I'll have more to say after I've watched it again. Soon. In the meanwhile, go and see this film.
The title has it dead-on: Spidey's home…
And the business-end:
• Is there a Wilhelm Scream? I think so.
• Is there a Stan Lee cameo? Yes.
• Is there a mid-credits scene? Yes.
• Is there a post-credits scene? Yes.
Tonally, the film's very Iron Man, and not just because there's fair amount of Tony Stark in it.
Yes.
More than.
It's a high-watermark for the central cast, for sure.
Depends why, but probably.
Pretty sure I heard one in 'the ferry scene'.
A second-pass should confirm either way.
Level 1: As well as some on-screen Lego Death Star and vintage Kenner X-Wing love, the young-and-upcoming Lando Calrissian is in this.
*1 Michael Giacchino's back on scoring-duties, and while he works in themes and motifs from previous Marvel composers (namely Jackman, Tyler, Elfman), there's a notable amount of Rogue One's styling in there as well. I swear it's like he has to have two projects on at the same time… [ BACK ]
*2 There's also a superb callback/reference to The First Avenger, but this spoiler-free review prevents me from going any further. I grinned like an idiot, anyway. And fair play to them for inserting that jibe about an invisible jet, coming a month after Wonder Woman's big-screen debut… [ BACK ]
*3 We've also not yet gotten full confirmation if the recently announced Venom project starring Tom Hardy will take place in the MCU or Sony's own Sinister Six timeline. Personally I'm hoping for the latter because as much as I loved Homecoming, I want to see Andrew Garfield back in the suit at some point, too. [ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
