Oscar (1991).

Review #2239: Oscar (1991).

Cast: 

Sylvester Stallone (Angelo "Snaps" Provolone), Ornella Muti (Sofia Provolone), Peter Riegert (Aldo), Tim Curry (Dr. Thornton Poole), Vincent Spano (Anthony Rossano), Marisa Tomei (Lisa Provolone), Elizabeth Barondes (Theresa), Eddie Bracken (Five-Spot Charlie), Linda Gray (Roxanne), Chazz Palminteri (Connie), Don Ameche (Father Clemente), Kurtwood Smith (Lt. Toomey), William Atherton (Overton), Art LaFleur (Officer Quinn), Robert Lesser (Officer Keough), Yvonne De Carlo (Aunt Rosa), Martin Ferrero (Luigi Finucci), Harry Shearer (Guido Finucci), with Richard Romanus (Vendetti), and Kirk Douglas (Eduardo) Directed by John Landis (#328 - Trading Places, #410 - Coming to America, #513 - Spies Like Us, #1114 - Animal House, #1462 - The Blues Brothers, #1465 - An American Werewolf in London, #1699 - Blues Brothers 2000, #1718 - The Stupids, #2026 - Twilight Zone: The Movie)

Review: 

"Oscar is a farce set in 1931, sort of Damon Runyon meets Feydeau. I shot the picture in a deliberately stylized manner, attempting a thirties Hollywood comedy look and feel (Peter Riegart, at one point, actually says, Why I oughta...)"

 

Sure, I had this on my mind for a few years. How could one not be interested in a film with a director and actor passing through different tides of their career? It was the film Stallone appeared in right after the first perceived end of the Rocky series with Rocky V [1990] while for Landis it was the first of a string of, well, six films with little-to-no appreciation in the 1990s (which includes The Stupids [1996], a movie I heartedly defend). The film is a remake of the 1967 film of the same name, as originally directed by Édouard Molinaro (which in turn was based on a play by Claude Magnier). The key difference between the two Oscars is that the Landis one is set in the 1930s rather than being a contemporary comedy of errors; Landis wasn't exactly a stranger to screwy comedies, as evidenced by Trading Places (1983), for example. The film was written by Michael Barrie and Jim Mulholland, who actually had written for the comedy skit anthology film Amazon Women on the Moon (1987) to go with years and years of TV comedy writing. The movie was neither a hit with audiences or critics, with the common remark being that audiences apparently were not willing to go with Stallone in a non-action role (apparently, a test audience member actually wondered when Stallone was going to take off his shirt and start blasting people). Of course, Landis and Stallone do not shy away from talking about the film and its distinct place when it comes to actors trying to play against type (particularly when compared to Stallone in say, Rhinestone [1984] or the film that immediately followed Oscar with Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot [1992])

I don't really understand how people didn't like this film. Was it really that hard to see Sylvester Stallone (who was cast in the film after Al Pacino came and went because Dick Tracy offered more money) do comedy? Really? Sure, the "Around the rugged rocks the ragged rascals ran" bit may have been familiar to some folks, but was it really hard to see how it could be played for worthwhile amusement with Stallone there to say it? Of course, Tango & Cash (1989) was sort of a funny movie that I appreciated with Stallone, so maybe broad It is a gangster film without any violence that confines itself to one location for most of its runtime (109 minutes) with a cast packed to the gills in names to see for later (and those that weren't as much) in support around Stallone that do the type of hit-or-miss comedy that is just about screwy enough to work. It is delightfully manufactured weirdness that contorts itself for a few delightful moments. Stallone isn't asked to do too much broad comedy here, but he clearly is game to play along with the idea of "civility" packed in a suit that handles the ever-growing confusion of daughters and cases with charm (I'm not sure if I agree with his musing that he should've played it "incredibly cynical"). Riegert and Palminteri accompany Stallone at times with their own goofy type of charm (one snide and one in constant confusion), which is delightful in the best ways possible. Go figure that Curry nails his enunciation act right then and there with dignified timing and (wait for it) charm to spare. Tomei is quite amusing in flapper attitude that is fiery in that momentary sparkplug of goofiness. It should be noted that Tomei was cast in My Cousin Vinny (1992) because the filmmakers for that film were invited to the set by Landis and liked what they saw of her acting in a scene, so that's one person who really benefitted from this film. For all the credit one can give to Stallone or others, Spano unfortunately draws the shortest stick, because he isn't particularly interesting enough to keep being in the film to draw attempts at what I think should be humor but is the equivalent of a vacant stare (Muti and Barondes narrowly miss the shortest stick). Others get less to nibble on but are neat for those who like certain faces or sounds in say, eagle-bleary-eyed Smith or the small double act of Ferrero and Shearer. The film drifts in and out with wry enjoyment at being a quirky flashback that I enjoyed more often than not with its dedicated cast engaged to make silly entertainment that is sincere enough to merit a look for the curious at heart.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars. 

Next up: Debt 1, Pirates 0 in Cutthroat Island. 

Spider-Man: No Way Home.

Review #1781: Spider-Man: No Way Home.

Cast: 

Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Zendaya (MJ), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Jacob Batalon (Ned Leeds), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Jamie Foxx (Max Dillon / Electro), Willem Dafoe (Norman Osborn / Green Goblin), Alfred Molina (Dr. Otto Octavius / Doc Ock), Benedict Wong (Wong), Tony Revolori (Flash Thompson), Marisa Tomei (May Parker), Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Tobey Maguire (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), Rhys Ifans (Dr. Curt Connors / The Lizard), and Thomas Haden Church (Flint Marko / Sandman) Directed by Jon Watts (#966 - Spider-Man: Homecoming and #1243 - Spider-Man: Far From Home)

Review: 

If you think about it, the best thing the Spider-Man series should do is take a few years off. Don't get me wrong, this movie is just fine and all that jazz. But as we approach the end of 2021, consider the fact that there have now been nine of these films in nearly twenty years, a rate basically like the James Bond series. At least one can say there is apparent difference between the respective series of films done by either Sam Raimi, Marc Webb, and Jon Watts. Of course, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) has stood tall in its own right when it came to a unique style of animation while featuring several versions of the hero in numerous dimensions (i.e. a multiverse). So, of course it figures that the third film of the third series of (live action) Spider-Man films decides to feature each of the previous heroes and villains of the previous films. If one didn't think they were cribbing from Spider-Verse, you might joke that they really cribbed from the multi-Doctor specials of Doctor Who, complete with a lack of surprise of really seeing these faces. The film was written by the same two behind the last film: Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers (they had also co-wrote the Homecoming film).

Not to be mean, but Spider-Verse did it better. True, the approach of this film is different (because that had the challenge of showing a new hero), but there is a familiar link within trying to stuff as much as possible in 148 minutes (the longest of the film series) that results in a decent if not noticeably uneven movie. It is just a bit better than Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019), but it is absolutely clear that the best Spider-Man film is a horse race between Spider-Man 2 (2004) and the aforementioned Spider-Verse film. But I will applaud the film for at least taking the time to approach the nature of consequences and choices when it comes to Spider-Man, if only because I did tire of the idea of folks just happening to know just who was behind the mask (if you remember, the last film ended with everyone suddenly knowing the name in a frame-job), almost as much as having the hero switching their masks on-and-off. In other words, sometimes you need to see your heroes get taken down a peg. Honestly, the idea of responsibility versus fate when it comes to handling circumstances is probably the more interesting idea presented by the film, since the villainous group is the one shown before the other main component. Granted, I don't really think I had to hear the "with great power comes responsibility" line again, but at least there is some sort of meaningful drama presented in making a real choice and sticking to it. Of course, the thing that comes with doing a film with numerous characters is all the references that come with it. Simply put, sometimes the film really takes it a bit much with "fan-service". It isn't exactly ego-stroking, but sometimes the best thing to do with a film that idles between action and conversation is to just let things breathe. This is especially apparent in the opening, which might be more interesting to set the tone if it wasn't for the incessant conversation that comes and goes before it finally ceases. The action scenes are decent, even if one wonders if the circumstances involving filming (filming in 2021 versus 2019, if you get my drift) means that certain dialogue scenes are a bit muddled. I appreciate Holland for what he has done for the role of Spider-Man, in that he seems to have really settled into this role now, charming in his disposition that keeps things in check. If the discussion at just who is the best Spider-Man comes up, one can at least make a fair argument for him among the others. Zendaya does just as well in the composure expected from maintaining her key angle in the plot that matches well with Holland for curious moments. Batalon does well with a few chuckles, but it is Cumberbatch who is the interesting last piece among the main cast, gliding through with reasoned timing that matches starkly with Holland (in a sense dabbling as a mentor but really more of a foil, what with the whole "turn things back" thing). Tomei does well with the warm ease presented for the role that doesn't get shuttled too far into the background (Favreau less so, but at least it is nice to see him). It is nice to see Simmons get to chew on the familiar words of a role now played five times, even if the obvious thing parodied is more an eyeroll than anything ("TheDailyBugle.net", gee I wonder). 

One gets to see a handful of villains - five, in fact. Oh sure, the highlight is Dafoe. He is the key in making the film work as well as it can when he is there because he is the prime sinister contrast needed among everything present that has not lost a step despite all the previous appearances (one prior film with two subsequent cameos). Molina (CG and all) is a careful second, while Foxx makes a capable mark. I can only imagine the joke I had about seeing Electro if I saw The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) beforehand, if only of the stark differences that a few years makes (yellow instead of blue). At least the Lizard looks better now, probably because he isn't really shown in full light, while the Sandman looks just fine, even though he probably doesn't have as much to really do (same with the reptilian, but that wasn't a surprise). Eventually, it becomes time to see Garfield and Maguire return as well. This works about as well as you would expect, in that they haven't lost the spark that made each interpretation interesting to view on screen (of course, one doesn't dwell much on the time between the respective last appearance, nor exactly what's up with their respective story, I suppose), having good patience and charm that we all have seen before and such. The three "Spider-Men" make for a good team with fitting chemistry by the time it comes to the climax, and it keeps the film from potentially de-railing under all of its weight (narrative or figuratively). By the time the film makes its final decision, I am at the very least satisfied with where the series may choose to go for its next film, even I would argue that a couple of years off wouldn't kill them (oh, but Sony sure loves the idea of their own Spider-Man film universe, and I immediately try to stop rolling my eyes). It maneuvers the line of responsibility and what it means to be a hero within a tightly packaged film that hits most of the marks required from its expectations that make a good time. Granted, it isn't the best film I've seen all year, but at least it proved its mettle in entertainment to make it all worth it. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Well, I did not actually intend for three Spider-Man films to be the closing trio of 2021, and yet here we are with another year over. Since this show started on December 20, 2010, only in three occasions (2010, 2015, 2017) has not had a review on New Years' Eve. It is nice to follow in the tradition of covering a current-year film like I did with Tenet (2020) last year, so it was good to get this out in time. That makes for 163 reviews in 2021 and the end of Season 11. It might not have been as busy as the previous year, but this was still the fifth busiest year in Movie Night's history (with only Season 2, 3, 4, and X being bigger). Have a Happy New Year in 2022 and I will see you there with what I hope is a good group of selections.

The Big Short.

Review #1574: The Big Short.

Cast: 

Christian Bale (Michael Burry), Steve Carell (Mark Baum), Ryan Gosling (Jared Vennett), Brad Pitt (Ben Rickert), John Magaro (Charlie Geller), Finn Wittrock (Jamie Shipley), Hamish Linklater (Porter Collins), Rafe Spall (Danny Moses), Jeremy Strong (Vinny Daniel), Marisa Tomei (Cynthia Baum), and Tracy Letts (Lawrence Fields) Directed by Adam McKay (#526 - Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy and #693 - Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues)

Review: 

"I think it’s no accident that most people get bored when they hear about it. I think it’s, like, designed to be boring. I think they don’t want anyone participating in the conversation, they want you to use this jargon, they want you to basically go away, they want you to feel stupid, and the second you crack it, it’s just endlessly fascinating.”

Going from a reputation of comedy to verge into comedy can be a tough task, particularly if you have done so well with the former. And yet, if one has enough conviction in what they want to tell in their story (no matter how complicated), anything can happen. Adam McKay has proven a worthy example of achieving notice within both comedy and drama. The Pennsylvania native majored in English with studies at Pennsylvania State University and Temple University, but his real interest was in standup comedy. He did various work in improv comedy (most notably in Chicago with The Second City), which included being one of the founders of the group the Upright Citizens Brigade. He moved on to Saturday Night Live as a writer for six years (including two as head writer) before moving into directing. His first four films were each written by him and Will Ferrell (who starred on the show), which resulted in movies such as Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004) and The Other Guys (2010). Undeniably, it was not an easy task to adapt real-life events involving bankers and an economical collapse to film. Naturally, this is adapted from the novel of the same name, written by Michael Lewis that talked about the housing bubble of the 2000s and the people that bet against the bubble (the film kept Dr. Burry while basing the others on real-life money managers and traders such as Steve Eisman and Greg Lippmann). McKay expressed an interest in doing a film based on the book because of his interest (and outrage) in the crisis with people depicted in the book that did not fit what a studio might desire for leads to follow - explaining financial terms to go alongside all of this is another story entirely. McKay and Charles Randolph would adapt the book to film as screenwriters - Randolph wrote his screenplay over a period of six months while McKay made his contributions two years after that, most notably with the moments involving breaking the fourth wall and celebrities brought in to explain certain terms.

What we have here is a film that can equally be viewed as both a bio-drama and a comedy on the nature of unchecked greed versus incompetence within finance, a film that will have one buzzing with information to digest that will leave them rippling with curiosity over just how one could get away with so much with a system that really didn't know what it was doing. We are talking about people who bet against the odds for a market that looked like it would never stop based on what had happened before with the foundation when it comes to mortgages, subprime mortgages and collateralized debt obligations. In other words, it's the story of people who found themselves with a system that was not in fact too big to fail, and one can either look upon them however they like, whether that means with anger or another way. Sometimes one needs a bit of informative depression when it comes to films wanting to tell a film about finance. In that sense, it is inevitable to look upon another film related to greed with finance in The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), or maybe even something like Margin Call (2011). The more complicated it gets with its foundation and tension, the better the film goes, and that proves to be the case with an excellent and complicated film like this, a useful one fresh for some interesting acting alongside its movement around economics that make a worthwhile film that appeals to biting satire rather than condescending biopic. The film is told through three separate but parallel stories that are linked through the eventual crisis, in which two of the main four actors doesn't ever interact with the others. Bale is our first focus, one who certainly molds right in with an eccentric role filled with concentration and awkward charm that never seems like a bit played out to impatience, whether that means listening to loud music in his office or fiddling with his clients about being right. Carell (no stranger to dramatic turns after being known for comedy) is just as well-done, capturing a certain cynicism-filled edge that reaches with useful honesty for what one can feel about others around them in terms of temper (although if you hear it from Eisman, the man that Carell is loosely playing, he captured the anger without his sense of humor - but biopics can only be so fleeting). Gosling does well here with a role that practically seems made out of snakeskin, one filled with transparency for what he does, which works out pretty well for a performance that we follow along at times for certain moments of explanation. Pitt is fairly reserved here for a role that fits that requirement, independent without becoming entrenched in the background for too long. Magaro and Wittrock both do well with contributing idealism within wanting to make a bunch of money within a withering system that lend a few wry moments while closing the film out with a poignant moment inside a collapsed building of finance. Linklater, Spall, and Strong also do fine with contributing their end in support to follow along Carell without being lost in all the financial hullaballoo. As a whole, its moments in trying to balance drama with details about finance with a variation on the usual exposition that keeps the film on its heels for 130 minutes with farce and furor that makes a provocative film on history that still lingers in its consequences years later that is useful to keep alive in our mind to understand the rights and wrongs of what might seem mundane but are in fact much more than that.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.

Review #1545: Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.

Cast: 
Philip Seymour Hoffman (Andy Hanson), Ethan Hawke (Hank Hanson), Marisa Tomei (Gina Hanson), Albert Finney (Charles Hanson), Rosemary Harris (Nanette Hanson), Brían F. O'Byrne (Bobby Lasorda), Aleksa Palladino (Chris Lasorda), Michael Shannon (Dex), Tom Zolandz (Junkie), and Amy Ryan (Martha Hanson) Directed by Sidney Lumet (#035 - 12 Angry Men, #036 - Network, #404 - The Anderson Tapes, #1065 - Deathtrap, #1446 - Murder on the Orient Express, #1450 - Dog Day Afternoon)

Review: 
“In drama, the characters should determine the story. In melodrama, the story determines the characters."

If one can say they directed 44 films, that would probably be enough to have pride in as a director. If one could say they had a handful of memorable movies to go alongside an Honorary Academy Award and some notice for stars that feature in those films, that would be exceedingly good to have. At the age of 83, Sidney Lumet created one last classic to serve a career filled with well-managed preparation and a vitality for storytelling with complexity and stature to go with it. Not every film of his was great, but Lumet managed to cultivate success and audience notice with films in multiple decades with films like 12 Angry Men (1957), The Pawnbroker (1964), Network (1976), and The Verdict (1982) while still keeping busy with smaller films and a soft return to television (his involvement with 100 Centre Street was his first in 40 years). The film was written by first-time screenwriter Kelly Masterson, who previously worked with stage plays before being inspired by "the folly of human nature" and his study in theology to write this screenplay, which took seven years to get it made. Lumet was attracted to the script (likening it to a melodrama as opposed to just a thriller) while also making key suggestions to the plot such as having the main two actors play brothers rather than friends in order to heighten the tension. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (based on a old Irish saying) was the first and only Lumet film to be shot on high-definition video (owing to less hassle) along with being the last film that he directed before his death in 2011.

Sometimes a simple plan of robbing a mom-and-pop store for easy money and easy solutions to the problems of two brothers just doesn't go the way one expects. Or more specifically, sometimes people are just brought down by the obsessions that wreak havoc on one's soul, particularly their obsessions. What we have is a family on the verge of a breakdown in terms of morality and beyond that captures the desperation one can encounter when greed turns into guilt. I think we all reach a moment where we think about what would happen if we could just escape from our troubles, where one must try to stop themselves from having envy over how the grass looks on the other side. We look upon these people and we see them as fairly believable types reflecting upon us regardless of however many bad choices they end up making, because the simplest plans can go awry just like that turn crime dramas into tragedies. It does this by spanning through different perspectives that will occasionally crisscross a scene we saw earlier with another look, which pleases those who desire such non-linear telling for the most part. Hoffman, generally known for his variety of distinct character actor roles throughout his life, does tremendous here in pulling strong will and desperate emptiness needed to encapsulate his part of the drama needed that would have been rough putty with less talent behind it. Hawke has an equally interesting challenge with his pathetic counterpart that he still handles with a fair sense of conviction to what he needs to pull here on his end to keep up with the level of desperation required without becoming consumed in languished pity. Tomei doesn't have as much dialogue, but she does well in capturing a lack of satisfaction and aimlessness with what she has when facing Hoffman or Hawke. Finney is the last key to come together in terms of this growing spiral in terms of hardened nature that sells those carefully planned moments just right, with his one highlight being a scene of attempted reconciliation that ends with a devastatingly executed breakdown in what you see in the margins. Of the rest of the cast, Shannon does nicely in those small moments of sad intimidation for a film all about people past their prime. It generally works out for 117 minutes in winding itself up in tension and bleak situations that looks upon consequences and lost values within oneself and family that usually hits the mark in keeping up with its perspectives that all build to a mostly rewardingly bleak conclusion in what it says and doesn't say. Ultimately, I would say it proves to be an underrated classic worth looking upon with its high-strung string-pulling as Lumet's last winner.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Spider-Man: Far From Home.

Review #1243: Spider-Man: Far From Home.

Cast: 
Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury), Jake Gyllenhaal (Quentin Beck / Mysterio), Marisa Tomei (May Parker), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Zendaya (MJ), Jacob Batalon (Ned Leeds), Tony Revolori (Flash Thompson), Angourie Rice (Betty Brant), Remy Hii (Brad Davis), Martin Starr (Mr. Harrington), J.B. Smoove (Mr. Dell), Jorge Lendeborg Jr (Jason Ionello), Cobie Smulders (Maria Hill), and Numan Acar (Dimitri) Directed by Jon Watts (#966 - Spider-Man: Homecoming)

Review: 
In eleven years of Marvel comic book films, there has been a healthy stream of elevating heroes onto screen, familiar and not-so familiar that has certainly made its impact onto entertainment, for what its worth. I've enjoyed most of the twenty-three films just fine, although it certainly can prove tiring to go through yet another one of these kind of films this year, particularly after Avengers: Endgame. Being the film after such a big narrative event (for these films, anyway) is a tough task, with this feeling like an epilogue and a new beginning that justifies continuance without being a gasp for doing the same thing over and over again, having the same director and two of the co-writers of the last one (Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers) back in the saddle. I went into this with mild expectation, having been shaped by the good quality of the earlier film (alongside Sony's attempt at making a Spider-Man with Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse last year, which ruled) and such. I found it to be an adequate sequel that keeps the boat steady with its narrative while having a few charming moments and fanning the flame of interest for further stories with Holland shining at the helm.

What better way to make a film with a bunch of sights in Europe that happens to be interrupted by a superhero movie, which can surely help shake up the familiar dynamics seen in these kind of movies (or more specifically, this century, which now has had eight Spider-Man films released) without being completely out of its element. Holland works to his level with reasoned charm, capable of getting a laugh but also capable at keeping interest with the web-slinging hero for zippy effects scenes (sorry, action scenes) and moments besides that. With worse hands, it can prove hard to make a villain worth following up for a comic sequel. I enjoyed the previous film's adversary just fine, so I wondered exactly how they would do with an illusionist con-man character like this. I must admit, the idea of someone trying to forge success in life with a bunch of tricks can make for an interesting motivation in the big picture. Gyllenhaal lives up well to such standards, balancing charisma under said facade with relative ease, and he makes for a fine theatric when its needs him to do so for its second half. Jackson gets a few moments to shine as well, mostly when interacting with exposition or getting a snappy remark on occasion that makes him nice to show up as this character again. Tomei and Favreau both do fine, even if their respective time to shine is spread out a bit thin. Zendaya does well once again, having capable charm and chemistry with Holland when the moment requires it. Batalon and the others do their part without hesitation or interrupting the film's flow for the most part.

It's a summer flick that has some well-done action and a fairly decent story to go alongside things that will work out for the moment needed with not too many bumps in the road. Honestly, the only thing that got me was the way it dumped its villainous plot into gear through a toast, of all things, although at least the climax makes up for it just fine. Its 129 minute run-time tops out just fine, and it will surely prove a charmer for entertainment while keeping the door open for more with these folks in the future.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Spider-Man: Homecoming.

Review #966: Spider-Man: Homecoming.

Cast: 
Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Michael Keaton (Adrian Toomes / Vulture), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Robert Downey Jr (Tony Stark / Iron Man), Marisa Tomei (May Parker), Zendaya (Michelle), Donald Glover (Aaron Davis), Jacob Batalon (Ned), Laura Harrier (Liz), Tony Revolori (Flash Thompson), Bokeem Woodbine (Herman Schultz / Shocker #2), Kerry Condon (F.R.I.D.A.Y.), Garcelle Beauvais (Doris Toomes), and Jennifer Connelly (Karen), and Hemky Madera (Mr. Delmar) Directed by Jon Watts.

Review: 
It is astounding at the level that comic book movies have undergone in terms of scope and quality in the past decade, with this being the 16th film in Marvel's film universe (of which I've covered all but one), though Spider-Man has had numerous films within this century, with the first film (the only one I've watched - #611) being released in 2002, only 15 years ago. It also isn't Holland's first appearance in the role, seeing as he was in Captain America: Civil War (#796) just last year. Once again, it was time to go to the theater for a comic book film.

Baggage or not, I can say this movie is pretty good. There is a numerous amount of things that I liked from this movie, and it starts with Holland, who is instantly enjoyable to watch on screen; there is just something about him that clicks in each scene, whether as Parker or the titular hero, and I look forward to watch him in further films. Admittedly, I did wonder how the villain would be in this film, considering how they usually aren't as memorable in a good deal of these Marvel films. For me, Keaton does a fine job in trying to get around that problem, in part because his character is actually compelling to watch on screen, and I think it's because you actually get a sense of what he's doing and why he does it without it simply devolving into something one dimensional. Favreau and Downey are pretty good in their scenes, with the latter having a chemistry with Holland that works pretty well with the flow of the film. Tomei, despite not having too much screen-time, is fairly enjoyable and fits well with Holland. The rest of the cast is fairly watchable as well, contributing to the film for some laughs along with the story; as comic relief, Batalon admittedly could be hit or miss, but I found him to be relatively harmless (in terms of annoyance), and he felt useful enough to the film without seeming empty. There's just something relatable about the world that the movie builds that seems ripe for more adventures.

The film doesn't go too much into the origins of the character, but it doesn't feel necessary to have, mainly because the movie operates itself fairly coherently enough to get past that. The action scenes aren't particularly great (with the shaky cam definitely being hit or miss), but it doesn't look too muddy to hurt the experience; though the action isn't great for the climax, the build up and the acting for it is well enough to keep that from being a disappointment. There is a light but fitting atmosphere that goes for some laughs while not bogging itself down in being generic. What other film can have a scene where characters try to build the Lego Death Star? That's the fun thing about these Marvel films, they are diverse enough in their approaches and style that make these films irresistible to watch for me. It's easy for me to recommend it (if you already haven't seen it), but it's also easy to say that this is a fine installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that is a solid winner.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.