MovieChat Forums > Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) Discussion > Not what I wanted from a Spider-Man movi...

Not what I wanted from a Spider-Man movie


I loved the first two films of this iteration of the character. All I want from a Spider-Man movie is a story that centers on one prominent villain and how Spider-Man figures out how to deal with that villain. The first two films did that brilliantly with Vulture and Mysterio.

Then we got this mess. An entertaining mess, sure, but still a mess. This was Spider-Man: Fan Service - The Movie.

How much better it would have been if Spider-Man's identity being revealed had put Kraven the Hunter on his trail. That's the kind of movie I wanted.

reply

I thought it was a refreshing change. I especially liked that it wasn't another hero vs. villain battle. In this film, we really saw each villain as an individual, and were given deep insight into who they are, and why they are villainous. The idea of curing them rather than defeating them was refreshing as well. There was something so incredible about seeing Peter Parker bring the Green Goblin, Electro, Doctor Octopus, and Sandman into his apartment as friends, in an attempt to help them, that elevated this movie to a level rarely reached by a superhero film.

The fact that each villain already had been previously introduced in a past film was a huge help, and without those prior films to set them up, this film wouldn't have worked the way it did.

reply

Thanks for sharing your take on it. You make good points. My favorite part was probably when all the villains are in his apartment and then his spider-sense goes off. You know something has changed, but aren't sure what, yet. I also did enjoy seeing all those villains again. Especially Lizard. His characterization in particular really felt like the comic book. It was also a good move to portray Electro and Green Goblin closer to their comic book incarnations.

reply

F U

reply

That's okay, literally everyone else really likes it.

reply

I agree with you that the whole idea was a mess, but fairly entertaining. I do applaud the film for trying something different (although it seems the writers were poaching from Into the Spider-Verse). My problems with the movie lied elsewhere. First, I thought the dialog was awful. In the first half every single syllable uttered felt artificial, a continual stream of snarky sass delivered at an unbelievable pace that I quickly found painful. It would've been okay if it had actually been funny, but it wasn't to me and I felt I'd heard all the snappy comebacks and fake meta-observations before. Second, all the blubbering at the end was too much to take. I didn't feel any sadness for the plight of these characters. The melancholy failed because of the phony, snarky tone that dominated everything that preceded the later moments when the writers groped for unearned sympathy. And these weepy scenes just dragged on and on and on. In between the blubbering we got utterly predictable fortune cookie pithiness like "with great power comes great responsibility." Really? That tired cliché is the best they could come up with? Third, the movie was way too long. They should've cut at least a half hour out of the end, most notably the graveyard scene with the ubiquitous comic book mensch Favreau.

There was a good idea buried somewhere in this movie. It's just too bad that the amateurish writing team wasn't up to the task of making the characters sympathetic or believable human beings. MJ was mostly played as the standard teenage girl brat who sorely needed a dressing down from Deadpool. Ned came straight from the Steven Spielberg school of goofy fat kids who could be relied on to belch out dumb observations and make a nuisance of himself the instant there was a flicker of romance. Any dialog that did work was mainly due to the acting chops of Molina, Dafoe, and Garfield (the best actor of the three spidermen).

reply

You're saying Garfield is the best actor of three Spider-Men yet Tobey's second film is still the best Spidey film to date

reply

I agree with you. Raimi's Spiderman 2 is the best of all the Spiderman films. But in my opinion that's mainly because of the superior writing relative to the weak films that Garfield was saddled with. If Garfield replaced Maguire I'm pretty sure Spiderman 2 would remain my favorite. I think Maguire's greatest strength is how he plays the awkward, shy side of Peter Parker. Garfield is better in his delivery of Spiderman's wisecracking humor, an essential facet of Spiderman that dates back to his first appearance in the comics, and he's a passable Peter Parker even if a little more extroverted than he was written originally by Lee and Ditko. Tom Holland excels at no aspect of Spiderman's character. In fact, one big reason I disliked No Way Home is that Holland seems to play Peter Parker like he's perpetually jacked up on Adderall. This makes him exhausting and annoying to watch. Overall I just prefer Garfield's personality and sarcasm, and I do think he's a more versatile actor.

reply

Agreed on the poor writing, especially the forced snark. It's also disappointing that the whole film hinges on Doctor Strange being a terrible sorcerer. Just stop the damn spell, Steven, hash all the details out with Peter, and then get to the spell casting. None of this flying-by-the-seat-of-his-pants spell-casting nonsense.

reply

Yes, and another thing I'd prefer about Dr. Strange is that he not morph into a snarky, wisecracking superhero just like every other. Somebody needs to be serious and responsible besides Captain America.

I know this and it's been tested by research,
that he who f***s nuns will later join the church

reply

I agree. The fan service was too much.

reply

but the great thing about this movie is that it wasn't just fan service.

they brought the characters back - indeed a fan-servicey thing to do - but then they gave everyone new motivations and arcs, and redeemed things that perhaps didn't quite work right in the case of garfield.

which was great, and satisfying, and surprisingly emotional!

they didn't just give us a bunch of 'member-berries.' they didn't just trot out a bunch of actors and go 'hey, remember that guy? he's back!'

they gave us a complete story with payoffs, and considering how many people were here, it's actually a remarkable bit of stickhandling.

reply

True enough. It was quite a juggling act that they managed to pull of to the delight of many. Just wasn't the movie I wanted. The fact that the first two Holland movies were pretty much exactly what I wanted (with allowances that they are MCU movies and all that entails for good or ill) just made the third installment that much more of a disappointment to me. I felt like they were so close to a perfect trilogy, and botched it in the end. Just like the Maguire trilogy.

reply

i like the mcu spider-man films, but i also have a problem with them that i think this movie fixes.

the reason why i think this movie works is that it leaves us with the 'true' spiderman - he's broke, borderline homeless, has a dead relative & had his ass beaten.

the mcu spiderman we'd seen had a pretty nice ride to this point - fancy suit, in the avengers, stark industries helping him out.

i like the mcu spider-man, really like homecoming a lot. but it isn't really spider-man. at least not as i know him. every time those legs came out of the back of his suit or he used stark tech, i winced a bit.

so it was very nice & fitting i thought that they ended the film with the 'real' spider-man.

reply

I'm in complete agreement, there. Wiping the slate clean like they have gives us a Spider-Man much like he was from the 1960s up until he married Mary Jane in the 1980s. And that is certainly the best Spider-Man.

reply

I don't mind it for what it is and I never cared for these new Tom Holland Spider movies anyhow. It was a lot of fun, and it kind of established that all the Spider-Man movies are canon, so i'm no longer annoyed about Uncle Iron Man. This was definitely more a theme park attraction event movie than a real film with any sort of story. That's fine. I don't mind it for a one off. But it made sooooo much money they're gonna double down big time on fan service and probably produce a whole slate of unwatchable annoying movies. But for once, we got a late sequel to beloved movies before the lead actors were way too old for this shit, so that's a big win in my book. But for sure I see your point. If you loved the last two Spider-Man movies and were looking for something of a trilogy of a character's journey with a nice thematic wrap up, then this is kind of the 3rd Film Curse for you.

reply

Exactly. Well put.

reply

This is honestly one of the most original takes on a superhero movie in years IMO. I loved it. Having Kraven in it would've been could though.

reply