Homecoming The Rotten Tomatoes Score Thread

[psylockolussus]

You point wasn't the 90. It was that you have seen better films with lower RT scores and this is how i feel about most acclaimed X-men films. That was my point and it was pretty clear.

And why do you need to bring this up? This isn't about X-Men movies.

 

[marcvader]

Be your own judge guitarsingerguy.

 

[Gamma Goliath]

Really? That's kind of disappointing. I'm not sure how old you are, but I've read a lot about it having an old John Hughes film feel. Did you happen to grow up with any of the brat pack movies?

Depending on what kind of spidey fan you are, this is the best movie of them all. It's like spectacular spiderman the tv show but live action.

 

[Solaire]

So, I haven't seen it yet, but is it really THAT much better than the previous Spidey films? Are people more just freaking out about getting SM in the MCU finally, or is this a genuinely superior movie?

Many have said it's the only Spider-Man film because it's that much better. Villain was fantastic as well as Peter/Spidey. Was just about perfect for me and I have seen every Spider-Man film, read the comicbooks and watched the animated series.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

Be your own judge guitarsingerguy.

Obviously I'll get around to it, but I don't get to the movies nearly as often as I used to.

 

[Venom 1988]

So, I haven't seen it yet, but is it really THAT much better than the previous Spidey films? Are people more just freaking out about getting SM in the MCU finally, or is this a genuinely superior movie?

Its hard to say if you will like it or not. Honestly its my favorite Spider-Man movie (with SM2 just barely below it) but not everyone shares that view (and there's a few that think its the worst). However I think its fair to say that a majority of us like it, regardless of how we rank it to the previous movies.

 

[Darepool]

Obviously I'll get around to it, but I don't get to the movies nearly as often as I used to.

Definitely deserving of the score in my book. I thought it was superior to SM2 because it was easily the greatest Spidey we've ever seen on screen. The best of the comics brought to life. The Hughes-inspired high school stuff was on point and ultimately the heart of the film. I understand why some would prefer SM2, it's a great film and a technical gem, has incredible action and OCK was a beast (which the great Keaton matches), but this is right there with it for different reasons.

 

[Mordinsolus]

And why do you need to bring this up? This isn't about X-Men movies.

Because your phrase echoed exactly how i felt about them and i thought it was a funny coincidence so i though about sharing it.


I forgot the password to my previous account so i made this one. I'm formerly known as Gecko.

 

[spider-neil]

Definitely deserving of the score in my book. I thought it was superior to SM2 because it was easily the greatest Spidey we've ever seen on screen. The best of the comics brought to life. The Hughes-inspired high school stuff was on point and ultimately the heart of the film. I understand why some would prefer SM2, it's a great film and a technical gem, has incredible action and OCK was a beast (which the great Keaton matches), but this is right there with it for different reasons.

You like what you like but having a better adaptation of a character doesn't automatically equal a better movie.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

Definitely deserving of the score in my book. I thought it was superior to SM2 because it was easily the greatest Spidey we've ever seen on screen. The best of the comics brought to life. The Hughes-inspired high school stuff was on point and ultimately the heart of the film. I understand why some would prefer SM2, it's a great film and a technical gem, has incredible action and OCK was a beast (which the great Keaton matches), but this is right there with it for different reasons.

Yeah, I'm almost 40, so capturing some of that John Hughes brat pack feel was actually a big selling point for me. I'm glad to hear it's def there.

 

[Darepool]

You like what you like but having a better adaptation of a character doesn't automatically equal a better movie.

No, but like you said in another thread, a better Spider-Man movie. And this doesn't have to be *better* then SM2 to land in the 90's percentile. At the end of the day it's different strokes.

 

[Alana´s Gun]

You like what you like but having a better adaptation of a character doesn't automatically equal a better movie.

I honestly think that for users on here and many other forums this is not the case.

I think people really think that the closer to the comic the better it is. Even if a film is a better made FILM that's secondary to looking like a comic.

I don't agree, but I'd like to see if people will admit to feeling that way.

 

[Darepool]

Yeah, I'm almost 40, so capturing some of that John Hughes brat pack feel was actually a big selling point for me. I'm glad to hear it's def there.

I was glad as well, it wasn't just 'publicity speak'

 

[Darepool]

I honestly think that for users on here and many other forums this is not the case.

I think people really think that the closer to the comic the better it is. Even if a film is a better made FILM that's secondary to looking like a comic.

I don't agree, but I'd like to see if people will admit to feeling that way.

Believe it or not, part of the movie going experience (and ultimately the power of cinema) is the emotional reaction people have for what they are watching on screen. The idea that we should discount that or lessen it's importance to look at things 'objectively' or outside of our own personal connection is not only stupid but disingenuous. A major gripe I have with modern film criticism (but I digress). It is and should be considered a major part of the equation. Not just a measuring contest of film aesthetics.

 

[slimshady247]

The reason that emotions aren't a huge part of film criticism is because they're extremely fickle. It's impossible to create an objective standard for criticism going based off emotions, which are inherently subjective and subject to rapid change.

I got a lot of enjoyment out of SM:H, but the better film is the better film.

 

[Venom 1988]

I honestly think that for users on here and many other forums this is not the case.

I think people really think that the closer to the comic the better it is. Even if a film is a better made FILM that's secondary to looking like a comic.

I don't agree, but I'd like to see if people will admit to feeling that way.

Hmm I don't know if I agree with this so much. If I had to choose between a good movie or a movie that is accurate to the comics, I'm going to go with a good movie. Take the GOTG movies for example. For the most part, they aren't really that faithful to the comics, but they're probably among the best MCU movies for me. But having said that part of why I love Homecoming is that I feel Tom Holland is probably the most accurate Spidey. So I guess it ends up depending on what the filmmakers decide on what should and shouldn't be faithful.

EDIT on re-reading your post, I think I may actually have misread what you wrote lol. I think you and I are on the same page.

 

[Darepool]

The reason that emotions aren't a huge part of film criticism is because they're extremely fickle. It's impossible to create an objective standard for criticism going based off emotions, which are inherently subjective and subject to rapid change.

I got a lot of enjoyment out of SM:H, but the better film is the better film.

Many critics associate emotion with 'messiness' or even 'emotional manipulation' and something more detached or reserved with 'creative mastery' or 'control'. Spielberg was painted with these 'critiques' for many years. Some critics don't come out and say it, but it's obviously there in the subtext of reviews.

What shouldn't be ignored is the role emotions play in the experience.

 

[Alana´s Gun]

Believe it or not, part of the movie going experience (and ultimately the power of cinema) is the emotional reaction people have for what they are watching on screen. The idea that we should discount that or lessen it's importance to look at things 'objectively' or outside of our own personal connection is not only stupid but disingenuous. A major gripe I have with modern film criticism (but I digress). It is and should be considered a major part of the equation. Not just a measuring contest of film aesthetics.

These ARE a films aren't they? One can have an emotional reaction from something that is a (conventionally) good film.

What strikes me is I see a lot of people (not just here) saying essentially that Spider-man 2, is a great movie but Homecoming is better because they like the characterization of Peter better. Not because it's shot better, not because it's directed better or written better but more about recognizing the character as someone closely related to one in the comics.

I, clearly, liked SM2 more than Homecoming and I can even admit this is a more comic accurate version of Spider-Man in Homecoming but I couldn't say that Homecoming is better than SM2 because I recognize the character as one from a comic I once read.

There are plenty of things I like more than things I consider better and my real wonder is just if people also can look at things that way.

 

[Alana´s Gun]

Many critics associate emotion with 'messiness' or even 'emotional manipulation' and something more detached or reserved with 'creative mastery or control'. Many don't come out and say it, but it's obviously there in the subtext.

What shouldn't be ignored is the role emotions play in the experience.

But what he's saying is that those emotions aren't always based off the movie. They are based off the comic you read that looks like this or that movie. The movie doesn't always earn that positivity but rather your association of the movie with something of quality (this is a general statement not necessarily about Homecoming)

 

[slimshady247]

Many critics associate emotion with 'messiness' or even 'emotional manipulation' and something more detached or reserved with 'creative mastery' or 'control'. Spielberg was painted with these 'critiques' for many years. Some critics don't come out and say it, but it's obviously there in the subtext of reviews.

What shouldn't be ignored is the role emotions play in the experience.

I think you're painting with too broad a brush. Uncle Ben's death in SM1 is emotional. Peter lifting the rubble in SM:H is emotional. These are scenes that have been praised. All films are inherently manipulative - some films just hide their manipulation better than others. A relevant film I can think of where the story blatantly dips into emotional manipulation is GOTG, where Peter's mother is in the movie for about 30 seconds and somehow we're supposed to form an emotional connection with her just because she has cancer and liked some 80s greatest hits. Having had family members pass away from similar diseases, it's a little insulting to have such a thinly drawn character be held up by her disease and manipulate us based on basic empathy. THAT is emotional manipulation, and that's the sort of thing critics refer to when they use that term. Spielberg is certainly guilty of that in some of his lesser films.

 

[BaelaTargaryen]

TOMATOMETER

93%
Average Rating: 7.6/10
Reviews Counted: 228
Fresh: 211
Rotten: 17

 

[Darepool]

But what he's saying is that those emotions aren't always based off the movie. They are based off the comic you read that looks like this or that movie. The movie doesn't always earn that positivity but rather your association of the movie with something of quality (this is a general statement not necessarily about Homecoming)

How does he know what emotions are or aren't based off? It's an immediate, visceral response to what's happening on screen. It's an emotional reflection of what people experienced when they read the best of the comics, pure and simple. That doesn't mean they can't critique the film or bring up issues they had, but it also doesn't mean they should detach themselves from the experience for some self-imposed idea of objective standards when reviewing something. Bringing as comic accurate a Spidey to the screen was part of the directors intent (to bring people PLEASURE) so he should be rewarded for succeeding.

 

[slimshady247]

Nobody is saying to detach emotions from the viewing experience or from objective criticism. But there's a reason why criticism isn't wholly based on emotions.

 

[Alana´s Gun]

How does he know what emotions are or aren't based of, it's an immediate visceral response to what's happening on screen. It's an emotional reflection of what people experience when they reed the best of the comic's pure and simple. That doesn't mean they can't critique the film or bring up issues they had, but it also doesn't mean they should detach themselves from the experience for some self-imposed idea of objective standards when reviewing something. Bringing as comic accurate Spidey to the screen was part of the directors intent (to bring people PLEASURE) so should be rewarded for succeeding.

The statement wasn't an absolute. It CAN happen that way and it CAN happen the way you posit.

The pontential problem with that is that sometimes we can forget that what we enjoyed more isn't always the better product.

I love Revenge of The Sith, for example. I don't think it's better than something like Children of Men, but I'll probably go for RoTS more frequently than CoM.

What I'm curious to see here is if other people have that contradiction (for lack of a better term) or do they just say I liked this better so this is the superior.

 

[Darepool]

I think you're painting with too broad a brush. Uncle Ben's death in SM1 is emotional. Peter lifting the rubble in SM:H is emotional. These are scenes that have been praised. All films are inherently manipulative - some films just hide their manipulation better than others. A relevant film I can think of where the story blatantly dips into emotional manipulation is GOTG, where Peter's mother is in the movie for about 30 seconds and somehow we're supposed to form an emotional connection with her just because she has cancer and liked some 80s greatest hits. Having had family members pass away from similar diseases, it's a little insulting to have such a thinly drawn character be held up by her disease and manipulate us based on basic empathy. THAT is emotional manipulation, and that's the sort of thing critics refer to when they use that term. Spielberg is certainly guilty of that in some of his lesser films.

Again, this is all subjective, not objective. So yes, film is a subjective art form first and foremost. How we react to things in art is subjective. Which is why championing 'objectivity' has always been a bit disingenuous to me because a part of many filmmakers intent is to hit you on an emotional level before appealing to any 'intellectual' sensibilities. Yet a lot of modern criticism takes the opposite tact and seems to value the intellectual/technical merits over everything, or focuses more on the 'ideas' alone, but talk little about the emotional consequences, because again, that's where things get messy. It's also where the true power of film lies in my book. That disconnect is silly.

But I do agree Raimi's films had great emotional moments. I never disputed that.