‘Spider-Man: Homecoming’ Review

9. 11. 14. 19. 21. 24. Those are the ages that I’ve seen all six Spider-Man movies since Sam Raimi first brought the character to the big screen in 2002. One could argue that, love him or hate him, Spider-Man has been the quintessential super hero for the millennial generation — more so than even Batman or the X-Men — having already spawned two reboots in the decade since Raimi’s “Spider-Man 3” (disappointingly) ended his trilogy.

It’s fitting, then, that the latest iteration of the character be a 15 year old. This Peter Parker, played with impeccable likability by young star Tom Holland, would have been born in 2002, meaning he’s right on the cusp of the millennial generation. “Spider-Man: Homecoming” is a film much like its main character: its on the cusp of a generation that still cherishes the Spider-Man movies they grew up with, but is also eager for something new after sitting through the first reboot starring Andrew Garfield, which was far from “amazing” despite what the title may suggest.

In this regard, “Homecoming” achieves its promise. It is a passable, even sometimes impressive, start over for the franchise; it ultimately understands the character while simultaneously stripping away everything about him that the previous five movies just as well understood. The film’s phobia of rehashing even the slightest ideas from the previous films is both a strength and a weakness.

I didn’t want an origin story as much as the next guy — we unnecessarily saw it twice in a decade. Nor did I expect to see one. I was thoroughly aware that the film would thrust us into a time removed from Spider-Man’s origin story, and I was ready, even excited for that. Instead, the film circles around Spider-Man’s place in this new world of super heroes, with Tony Stark/Iron Man pulling double duty as Peter’s father-figure/mentor of sorts.

This dynamic is at the heart of the film and accounts for much of Peter’s motivations, as he struggles to keep a low profile because he wants to prove himself as an Avenger. As I watched the film, I didn’t completely buy this, so I was kind of taken out emotionally, just a bit, for 2 reasons: 1) Anyone familiar with Spider-Man’s comic book history knows that he’s largely been a loner for most of his career, up until the mid-2000s when he joined the New Avengers. That’s 4 decades of Spider-Man not being an Avenger, and while this film is obviously taking the character in a new direction, it’s basically a “Civil War” sequel in many aspects. This is why I enjoyed Peter’s choice not to take Tony’s offer at the end of the film, but by then I was only a percentage on board the ride.

And 2) there is the huge elephant in the room of Uncle Ben, who is not only a pivotal part of Spider-Man’s mythology, but the entire reason he is Spider-Man in the first place. This film is so obsessed with being a fresh-start that it completely ignores that aspect of the character, save for Peter’s throwaway line of “Aunt May has been through a lot lately, I can’t do anything else to hurt her”…or something like that.

So, while I don’t consider myself a source material purist by any means, and I appreciated that we didn’t get a concrete origin story since there was no need for one, I would have also appreciated more of a reason to care about why this guy wants to be a super hero other than, he wants to be an Avenger. Because even if this is the second reboot of Spider-Man, it’s the first time we’re seeing this interpretation in a standalone sense. The best super hero movies work because we know what motivates them. The only thing we know about what motivates Peter in this movie is the Avengers; for all we know, Uncle Ben may not even exist in this universe, and that’s kind of sad.

For all the heart that the movie has — and it does have quite a bit of it thanks to Holland — it doesn’t beat quite as much as I would have liked. The best thing this film has going for it is Holland. The audience has fun because he is undeniably having the time of his life — funny, awkwardly charismatic, and uniquely energetic, he embodies the best aspects of the character, or at least what the character should be like at this time of his life. The high school setting takes the character back to his roots, which I get behind, but it works because Holland is so passionate.

Michael Keaton, who plays the villainous Vulture, seems to be having just as much fun in the role. I loved the twist involving his character, and his interaction with Peter when he discovers he’s Spider-Man is one of the, if not the, best scene in the film. The Keatonaissance kick-started by “Birdman” hasn’t let up yet, and I’m all for it. I have a couple stray observations about Keaton/Spider-Man villains: 1) As much as I love Keaton, it’s hard not to notice his winged-creature type-casting: Batman, Birdman, Vulture… 2) Spider-Man has one of the best cast of villains in comics, and the majority of them share something in common, whether they are thugs doing bad things for the right reasons (Sandman, Vulture) or friends/mentors to Peter taken down dark paths (Harry Osborne, Lizard, Doc Ock). It was nice to see this interpretation of the Vulture stick to that, and it probably gives an older, working-class audience something to relate to just as much as Peter gives young teenagers someone to relate to. And 3) I enjoyed the cameos by Spider-Man villains from the comics, such as the Prowler and Scorpion, and I hope we get to see more of Donald Glover and Michael Mando in those roles, respectively, in a sequel.

But despite how good Holland and Keaton are, they can’t save the film entirely, especially during its bland action sequences. The film, to its credit, focuses more on its character dynamics than giant action set-pieces, but this is still a super hero movie. “Spider-Man 2,” released 13 years ago, has better fight/action sequences and that’s a problem. There are two major action set-pieces in this film involving a ferry and then a plane, and both, in hindsight, are far more lifeless than they should be. Does that come down to director Jon Watts, whose feature-length film credits include a little-known Indie horror film called “Clown” and 2015’s “Cop Car”? Perhaps.

Filmmakers experienced with the kind of action in super hero films, well, aren’t making super hero films. Sometimes we get lucky, and the filmmakers of “You, Me and Dupree” end up making two fantastic Captain America movies and are on their way to making two Avengers movies. This time, though, Watts just doesn’t seem to have the range, and the film lacks a certain sense of wonder. Just watch the trailer below, and tell me that movie, even that trailer, didn’t have a sense of wonder. You’d be a liar.

But in the end, there’s something to be said for just how much of this movie even is Watts’s. Yes, he’s the director and should be praised for the good character interactions in the film (the film is hilarious, and the comedy is timed to near-perfection) and criticized for the poorly executed action sequences like any other filmmaker would. But at the end of the day, this film is all Marvel Studios, right down to the post-credits scene involving Captain America (even if it is a friendly nod towards “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” in keeping with the high school theme). Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

As I’ve said, the film both benefits from and is cursed by the hovering of Marvel Studios, but I would ultimately take this over another abysmal “Amazing Spider-Man” movie, which seem even more pointless now than they did before. For all of my gripes, I am relieved that Spider-Man is in this universe now and I look forward to sequels that can hopefully build on and perfect the groundwork this film laid.

“Homecoming” may not be among the elite of super hero movies, but it is a fun time that ushers in the character for a new generation. I hope they feel the same way I felt leaving the theater this weekend as I did as a 9-year-old kid leaving “Spider-Man” in 2002.

Now, enjoy Chad Kroeger singing “Hero” from that film’s soundtrack. Super hero movies have never been the same since.