Spider-Man: No Way Home

Spider–Man: No Way Home has hit theaters to resounding support from audiences all over the world. This marks the third installment in Marvel’s franchise starring a trio of friends (Tom Holland as Peter Parker / Spider-Man, Zendaya as MJ, and Jacob Batalon as Ned Leeds) as they return from a school trip to Europe only to find that Mysterio has revealed Spider-Man’s true identity. This leads to an entire cascade of social and personal consequences for Peter and company. He, his family, and his closest friends have their lives thrown into shambles. Peter—being the naive, foolish, and kind-hearted young man that he is—turns to Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) to try and fix these problems with some magical intervention. But Strange’s spell quickly goes haywire and characters from all over the multi-verse break into the MCU’s reality. Once more, Parker’s immaturity (and Strange’s arrogance) has gotten him into a mess. Spider-Man has to save New York from several new interdimensional threats.

SPOILERS

THE BAD:

Some of No Way Home’s cinematography lacks dynamism and personality. The cuts are quick and sometimes sporadic. This strikes me as a clear consequence of filming during the COVID-era. There are entire scenes (e.g., during the conversation in Dr. Strange’s basement between the lead trio and Otto) where characters stand at least a bit stiff and still; it’s not entirely clear whether they are in fact talking to each other or to a blue screen. 

The side-villains do not receive as much attention as they deserve. The Lizard / Dr. Connors (Rhys Ifans) and Sandman / Flynt Marko (Thomas Haden Church) are rather irrelevant for most of the story. I find Sandman’s role especially problematic because he is one of two villains with a clear, concrete motivation for his return home. And yet, even when Parker proves that he can help, he turns on Parker because… of reasons? Still, each of these men have moments near the finale that work well. We might find the fact that the screen-writers and Jon Watts sideline these two rather understandable given the scope of the project. I appreciate Jamie Foxx’s admittedly lackluster return as Electro because, in the first place, his character looks leagues cooler than in Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014); secondly, his hunger for power occupies a more level-headed middle ground between the former two antagonists and Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe). This brings me to what I consider one of the great strengths of this movie.

THE GREAT:

Molina and Dafoe shine—utterly shine—as Doc Ock and Green Goblin, respectively. I miss Doc Ock and am so glad to see director Jon Watts, producer Kevin Feige, writers Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers, et al treat him well in this flick. Molina, with his very sympathetic charisma, plays a man whose heart may have once been in the right place, but has lost his way. His journey toward redemption between Acts II and III stands as a highlight of the film.

Dafoe navigates well the space between maniac and supervillain. He reminds us in the audience that power, unchecked by kindness and/or prudence, bears some close resemblance to, derives from, and leads directly to, insanity. Green Goblin, being more or less Norman Osborn’s other personality, has a lust that drives Norman over the brink and Dafoe plays that so sincerely. Perhaps even more than in Raimi’s first Spider–Man (2002), Dafoe’s performance creeps into our heads, striking bona fide fear in the minds of Parker and all of the movie’s heroes.  

Zendaya and Holland’s chemistry on-screen is greater than ever. Their love story continues to grow in charm and depth. Their acting chops continually improve. I especially appreciate how the writers demonstrate that MJ has grown out of her shell because Parker makes her feel loved and comfortable. Furthermore, MJ shows a tremendous amount of maturity in the ways she genuinely cares for Peter.  

Some of the action sequences stand out with some stunning stunt work. The fight on the highway junction between Molina’s Octavius and Holland’s Spider-Man is fun, crafty, and rather cool. I am most especially astonished by the fight between Goblin and Parker in the high rise after the villains break free. That sequence is violent, visceral, grounded, and heartbreaking.

It almost goes without saying, but the nostalgia of this movie works wonderfully. The inner-child within each one of us, especially fans of Spider-Man, will undoubtedly shout with glee when Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire appear as alternate universe Spider-Men. The roles that each of these fellow Parkers play are not merely superficial either. Each in his own ways helps Holland to grow into the kind of man he must be to become Spider-Man.  

THE AMAZING:

To my mind, the single most profound and significant feature of No Way Home is Peter Parker’s journey. The Peter Parker / Spider-Man of the MCU (Tom Holland’s character) must develop and persevere through an extraordinary amount of suffering. As I mention above, we know that this teenager has his heart in the right place. He goes out of his way in order to try and help his friends and family because his role as Spider-Man has inconvenienced them. But that sense of responsibility and compassion must be put to the test. 

How great of a test is this? At the end of Act II, Parker loses his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei) at the hands of Green Goblin. Through this tragedy, Peter’s struggle is made manifest. Before his very eyes, this maniac murders the woman who raised him, cared for him, and sought only to help the unfortunate—including Norman. It is in fact Aunt May who calls him to a transcendent standard. She appeals to his ethical self when Norman comes to FEAST (the homeless shelter that May manages) in search of help. Her injunction boils down to this: “we help people. That’s what we do.” And Peter’s particular calling means that the help he offers must be of the highest caliber. After all, with great power comes great responsibility.

Peter must respond to this assertion that Goblin gives him: “no good deed goes unpunished”. In the life of the hero, it is the burden which he bears, which he must bear, and in the end, which he chooses to bear. Parker becomes Spider-Man only when he recognizes the true cost of heroism. He sacrifices and suffers for the well-being of not only his friends but his enemies. He prioritizes the good of those who wish him ill—not only even, but especially when he must give grave and personal sacrifice(s) in order to help them. This is, after all, the principle which grounds his no-kill rule and it is one of many characteristics which makes him one of the greatest heroes in modern popular literature (and my personal favorite).

All in all, Spider–Man: No Way Home presents a fun-filled, nostalgia-driven, exhilarating and cathartic movie-going experience. While its cinematic flaws occasionally distract and the storytelling of the movie’s first act still feels a bit formulaic, the emotional and narrative pay-offs are more than enough to earn our attention, love, and affection. I cannot wait to see where Holland’s Spider-Man goes next.

Rating: 8.5/10

P.S. I shouted for joy both times when I saw Charlie Cox return as Matt Murdock/Daredevil to defend Peter from the allegations.

P.P.S. I love that Holland’s Parker sews a new suit for himself at the end of No Way Home. While we only catch a glimpse of it, it looks really good too, especially the classic shade of blue.     

Spider-Man: Homecoming

A Thematic and Speculative Revisit

This will not function as an ordinary review. Fans and critics alike rave that Spider-Man: Homecoming stands as one of the finest additions to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I concur. This is a well-written, charming, and exciting comic-book teen adventure flick. It excels as a teen comedy, as an action movie, and a solid adaptation of superhero literature.

I would like to touch on something that I find fascinating about this entry into Spider-Man’s world and Marvel’s universe as a whole. Spider-Man, as fans know, has a no-kill rule. Peter Parker (portrayed excellently by Tom Holland) does not kill. He has a wide variety of motivations for adopting this moral precept. I am most interested both in his reasons for his no-kill rule and in his execution, but especially the latter. If we stop and consider his perspective and how he applies such a rule, we see some stark contrast with other heroes in Marvel as well as the DC adaptations.

Spider-Man is the first member of the (big-screen) MCU who has this rule. Captain America kills. He’s a soldier, a patriot, and a veteran. He believes that sometimes in order to protect those whom he loves or the values which the West represents, he must kill. Iron Man makes a distinction between civilian and combatant and does his best to protect the latter, but does not hesitate to pull the trigger. Black Widow and Hawkeye—assassin and super spy—you get the picture. 

I move now to a particular scene near the end of Homecoming. After Stark’s plane has crashed on the beach, the Vulture/Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton) moves to steal away with some of the loot. Spider-Man notices that his wing-suit malfunctions and may explode at any moment. He warns the Vulture, but he does not listen. Instead he crashes back down in a fiery spit. What does Parker do next? He hustles into the flames to pull out Toomes’s body, now burnt and wounded. Parker saves his enemy’s life. Spider-Man is a novel kind of hero.

Do I mean to say that other heroes would not try? No. Certainly not. Matthew Murdock, aka Daredevil, for example shares this ethic. Still we witness something remarkable. The hero of this story risks his own life and limb in order to preserve that of the man who, moments ago, threatened to kill him in cold blood.

“With great power comes great responsibility.” Having learned from his Uncle Ben, this becomes Spider-Man’s modus operandi, his heroic principle. What constitutes that responsibility? Or, perhaps, more precisely, what does it mean to call it great? In order to make these determinations, it is beneficial to consider the proportion at the heart of the statement. The strength of one’s power corresponds—in some way—to the immensity of one’s responsibility. In a word, it seems quite reasonable that because one has been graced with incredible power, one takes on more responsibility. The hero, insofar as he is a hero, tries to seek and to enact justice. The superhero, insofar as he is super, takes on a superb or—if you like—transcendent responsibility. 

I suggest that one precept of this moral code demands that the hero put all other lives before his own. The will to sacrifice means having the will to sacrifice for anyone. The best heroes do so without a second thought. Their parents, their guides, their loved ones instill in them a duty beyond the self. This seed grows into a habit over time, and with practice. It is not enlightened self-interest which guides Spider-Man. It is not some abstract understanding of virtue. Rather it is the concrete and real idea that he carries with him: to save those who cannot (or will not) save themselves.

The superhero stands above the rest, even the everyday heroes, by definition. In my opinion, this is the principle which makes Superman the greatest superhero in the genre. Spider-Man and Batman are close approximations. It is precisely Kal-El’s alien origins, his transcendent character, his being from some place beyond the heavens which establishes Superman’s authority. He represents an ideal to which men may aspire. As Grant Morrison puts it so eloquently, “You have given them an ideal to aspire to, embodied their highest aspirations…  in time, they will join you in the sun.”

Bearing the duty to care for and protect not only one’s own, but one’s enemies as well, is a trademark Christian notion. It should come as no surprise to readers and viewers alike that these three—Spider-Man, Superman, and Batman—are the most popular and best-selling comic book characters of all time. Call me an optimist, but I believe this notion of mercy (a radical love grounded in self-sacrifice) has some small part to play in their popularity. Spider-Man upholds the dignity and safety of each and every neighbor, most especially his enemies.

Rating: Good Old-Fashioned Values

Spider-Man: Far from Home

Marvel Studios has proven yet again that when given the chance to treat their heroes well, they do not let us down. In Captain America: Civil War (2016), the MCU reintroduced audiences to the beloved Spider-Man with style. Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) set the bar incredibly high. Now, this year’s followup—Far from Home—may just be the greatest Spider-Man movie ever made. I do not say this lightly. This movie does practically everything right. It is a high-octane comic adventure with a compelling and downright vicious villain, an endearing love story (propelled by the chemistry of Zendaya and Holland), and just makes for one hell of a good time.

Peter Parker (Tom Holland) wants nothing more than to go on his summer vacation, confess his feelings to MJ (Zendaya), and take a break from his work as your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man. But when powerful inter-dimensional creatures called Elementals arrive to destroy our Earth, it falls to him, Quentin Beck/Mysterio (Jake Gyllenhaal), and SHIELD to defeat these monsters and save the planet. So much for the sight-seeing in Europe. Spider-Man, you have a job to do.

To begin my praises, writers Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers excel most especially in establishing Peter Parker as the teenager he is. They do a great job of bringing us into his world and shining a light on the ongoings of his life. He listens to his aunt and makes public appearances to raise money for charity. He runs to the store, packs his bag, and gets ready for his trip. Many of the movies in the MCU lack a concrete sense of the ordinary. And that’s not a knock on those films. But with Spider-Man, that would not quite fit. Far from Home—just as with Homecoming—reminds us why we call him a friendly neighborhood hero. Accordingly, we spend time with his classmates and friends, witness his concern firsthand and the emotional connections he shares with MJ and Ned (Jacob Batalon). We really believe that he cares deeply for them and wants to make sure they are safe. 

I admit. This next bit is a self-indulgent take, but Far from Home manages to fix some of the minor issues of the earlier projects. I mean specifically that it treats Peter as the boy-genius that he is. In Homecoming, much of what we get is Peter Parker in an Iron Man suit. Now that Iron Man is no longer with us, Parker shines as a witty kid who is quick on his feet, and remarkably agile both in body and in mind. He geeks out over the possibility of a multi-verse, and promptly apologizes “for being the smartest person in the room.” He builds his own high-tech suit (granted, using Stark’s equipment), and this allows us to see his mind at work. In a word, Far from Home does well to unfold Spider-Man’s independence as a hero and a protagonist. 

The performances of the film are excellent, as far as blockbusters go. Gyllenhaal—an already renowned actor—shines opposite Tom Holland and gives Michael Keaton a run for his money. As I mentioned above briefly, Holland and Zendaya do well both on-screen together as well as apart. Batalon once again provides entertaining comic relief and Ned’s brief relationship with Betty Brant (Angourie Rice) makes for some delightful and charming moments throughout. There is one particularly charged exchange between Peter and Happy (Jon Favreau). In this scene, Holland shows the audience that he has real potential, delivering his lines with a heavy heart.

There are precisely two things about this film that bother me. But they are minor. First, the flaw in Peter’s spider-sense comes up abruptly and then disappears until the third act. It is always intriguing to have Peter struggle with his powers, but it feels like Jon Watts and/or the screenwriters forgot about this challenge for more than half of the film. Second, how does Marvel expect me to believe that it has only been a year since the events of Civil War (that is, for those who were “blipped” away after Avengers: Infinity War)? Peter and his friends are only 16?! I grant the strangeness of the timeline, but I do hope we follow a more mature Parker in the sequel. I think we have spent enough time at Midtown High. 

The action sequences are some of the most fun I have ever had watching any superhero flick. I will give credit to the cinematographers who manage to capture some incredibly cool shots following Peter around the bridge and fighting with drones (cameras attached). The battles with the Elementals are rather CGI heavy, to be expected. The stunt work and fight choreography on the Tower Bridge in London are unbelievably stunning. These films continue to impress me with how they highlight Spider-Man’s abilities and how he seems to grow with each successive take.

Also, the Ramones track at the end is a real nice touch. Rating: 9/10

 

SPOILERS to FOLLOW

For fans of the comic books, Beck’s betrayal comes as no surprise. Still, the movie delivers it so exceptionally well, I for one was at a loss for words. After a piece of illusion tech goes missing and MJ finds it, Peter realizes he has made a mistake and rushes to find Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson). But Mysterio has manipulated Peter’s boyish naivete even more than he first imagines. The fight scene which follows is simply breathtaking. Beck’s beat-down of Parker is astonishingly comic-book accurate, visually stunning, and emotionally shocking. The stakes of Far from Home are incredibly high and I applaud the filmmakers on this count.

Both of the end credits scenes are awesome. The mid-credits scene is one of the best from Marvel to date. So many times have fans of the books followed Parker with the whole city against him, blackmailed or set up and his back to the ropes. But we have never really seen it on the big screen. I eagerly await the chance to see this happen.