Homecoming The Rotten Tomatoes Score Thread

[StormC]

Really just depends what you're looking for in a movie.

Raimi's movies are more emotional and well-directed, but Tom Holland is the perfect version of my favorite superhero in a brisk, hilarious, and fun film. I personally am not a big fan of the more sulky, "my life always sucks" version of Peter in the Raimi movies (comic accurate or not), so having a protagonist that I can actually really enjoy watching on screen makes a big difference.

 

[Iceman]

A perfectly wise-cracking Spidey is something I've wanted to see for a long time. We've had the high stakes impossible life for Spidey a lot in the films so far so I'm happy with this approach for HC although of course it will be good to see the more serious stuff in sequels.

 

[Darepool]

Really just depends what you're looking for in a movie.

Raimi's movies are more emotional and well-directed, but Tom Holland is the perfect version of my favorite superhero in a brisk, hilarious, and fun film. I personally am not a big fan of the more sulky, "my life always sucks" version of Peter in the Raimi movies (comic accurate or not), so having a protagonist that I can actually really enjoy watching on screen makes a big difference.

Let's put it this way, I can acknowledge that SM2 is the superior flim from a technical standpoint (in fact I think it's the greatest technical CBM of all time). I can acknowledge that it has the greater action pieces (I think the train sequence is the greatest action ever filmed in a CBM). Yet I got more joy, pleasure and EMOTIONAL response from Homecoming. Watching what I always wanted from Peter Parker/Spider-Man and the way he interacted with his peers in a high school setting trumped the prowess of SM2.

That's not to say that HC isn't great in other ways as well, it is, but the emotional resonance that I experienced from the various characterizations trumped everything else that's come before. The stuff on top of that was a bonus. So what's the better film?

To each their own.

 

[StormC]

Let's put it this way, I can acknowledge that SM2 is the superior flim from a technical standpoint (in fact I think it's the greatest technical CBM of all time). I can acknowledge that it has the greater action pieces (I think the train sequence is the greatest action ever filmed in a CBM). Yet I got more joy, pleasure and EMOTIONAL response from Homecoming. Watching what I always wanted from Peter Parker/Spider-Man and the way he interacted with his peers in a high school setting trumped the prowess of SM2.

Well said, agreed pretty much on all points.

 

[spiderman2]

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?

I need to see the movie a 2nd time before I can do like a over all CBM list and were I should have this on that list but I have never been that big of a MCU fan and find most of there movies to be very overrated and had a lot of things that worried me going into the movie and yet I ended up loving the movie. I think HC, Doctor strange, Cap civil war, Cap winter soilder are the only great MCU movies. I think Iron man 3, Avengers, Avengers AOU, incredible hulk are good but far from great and the other 8 MCU movies I think are either ok or crap. I am a big fan of Spider-Man 2 have watched the movie like I don't know 60 times or something its why its my user name lol and still like it more then this movie but there are some things I like about this movie more and this movie does so many things well/great. Its by far the funniest Spider-Man movie, by far the 2nd best villain in vulture close to even ock in fact. Has a big Spider-Man comic book moment. By far a peter that fells the most like peter and by far the peter that most fells/looks like a kid. A movie that does a great job of showing that Spider-Man dosnt give up and what it means to be a hero. Spider-Man 2's action is much better and I miss having JJ in the movie and harry but after seeing HC the lake of a funny Spider-Man in Spider-Man 1-3 stands out even more and same thing with Spider-Man in amazing Spider-Man 1 and 2. Also I was dissapointend years ago when we found out that the MCU Spider-Man was going to be a kid again has I wanted to see a older Spider-Man yet I ended up liking the school stuff in this movie a lot and it felt fresh even. Last being that this was the first Spider-Man movie to not heavly have a big part of the story be a love story also made the movie fresh.

 

[Frodo]

The film imo is certainly better than the last 3 Spiderman films and is better than the last few Marvel films Antman, Dr Strange, and GOTG2.

Its gone over very well with the GA and critics , and those who have issues with it have a hard time arguing that the film is bad. Even then, alot of the criticisms of the film seem to be from fanboys than from critics or the mainstream.

 

[The Joker]

The film imo is certainly better than the last 3 Spiderman films and is better than the last few Marvel films Antman, Dr Strange, and GOTG2.

Its gone over very well with the GA and critics , and those who have issues with it have a hard time arguing that the film is bad. Even then, alot of the criticisms of the film seem to be from fanboys than from critics or the mainstream.

That's usually the case when it comes to criticisms against the best CBMs.

 

[spiderman2]

While I think this movie is going to end at a 93. Its going to be hard to get to a 94 but it is looking less and less likely that it is going to drop to a 92.

 

[Aristotelian]

The discussion on film criticism here was so interesting that as a philosopher I just have to contribute:

There is a real difference between subject and object, or between what knows and what is known. The object is outside the subject, other than it. And criticism is "To evaluate something, and judge its merits and faults." That is, it is the assessment of an object by a subject. And again the object is different to the subject. Therefore, true criticism that is not a hack job is precisely objective - not of private ever-changing reactions to the thing being assessed, but of the qualities of the object itself.

So with this background in place we come to film criticism in particular. What's a good film? Well, in order to answer that we need to answer this: what is the object we call a film? A film is a story told primarily through a visual medium. So we have all its constituent parts: actors, lighting, effects, camerawork, sound, music, etc. And each of these has its own objective criteria. Take lighting. If the shots are so dark you can't see what's going on clearly, you have objectively bad lighting. And so on.

So we can clearly see that criticism is properly an art that perfects us as human beings, therefore requiring training to do properly. Now of course, because we are subjects, some subjective elements are going to colour our critiques of other objects, especially ourselves - this is why we need others to reveal our faults to us so we can improve as human persons - but they should not be given the primacy they are all too often afforded.

Those who maintain art is wholly subjective essentially collapse this distinction between subject and object, which no one has offered a compelling case for as yet.

I'd welcome argument, if anyone cares to give it.

 

[StormC]

While I think this movie is going to end at a 93. Its going to be hard to get to a 94 but it is looking less and less likely that it is going to drop to a 92.

Crazy to think it's the second highest percentage in the MCU (although GOTG1 and Avengers have its average score beat, and it's equal to TWS and CW). It could fall to 92 but it keeps getting streaks of Fresh reviews that act as a buffer.

Spidey is back, baby.

 

[spider-neil]

While I think this movie is going to end at a 93. Its going to be hard to get to a 94 but it is looking less and less likely that it is going to drop to a 92.

Appropriate that SM2 will have the highest Rotten Tomato score. It's hands down the best movie with Spider-Man in it. SMH has the best Spider-Man. There's a difference.

 

[spiderman2]

Crazy to think it's the second highest percentage in the MCU (although GOTG1 and Avengers have its average score beat, and it's equal to TWS and CW). It could fall to 92 but it keeps getting streaks of Fresh reviews that act as a buffer.

Spidey is back, baby.

It could maybe drop down to 92 but like you said it keeps getting streaks and that makes it less likely to drop to a 92. It is now at 247 reviews and to drop to a 92 it would need to have 9 of its next 53 reviews be rotten and that is unlikely to happen by the time it gets to 300 reviews and once at 300 reviews you are going to get very little reviews. Now to get to a 94 on the other hand it would need to have just 2 of the next 53 be rotten and that may not be likely either.

Appropriate that SM2 will have the highest Rotten Tomato score. It's hands down the best movie with Spider-Man in it. SMH has the best Spider-Man. There's a difference.

There are things I like about SM2 more the biggest one being the action but there are things about HC I like better the comedy being the big one need to see it again but I think it may be close to SM2.

 

[Best]

Appropriate that SM2 will have the highest Rotten Tomato score. It's hands down the best movie with Spider-Man in it. SMH has the best Spider-Man. There's a difference.

Finally, a simplified version of the 500 word essays endured since release.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

Finally, a simplified version of the 500 word essays endured since release.

I haven't seen the film yet, but this actually tells me what I need to know. So, as a film, SM2 is superior, but Tom Holland plays a more accurate Spider-Man. Simple and to the point.

 

[spider-neil]

Themes. Action. Acting (Dunst, aside). Music. Direction. Lighting. Cinematography. Sound design. Effects. SM2 is the best Spider-Man movie ever made and EASILY one of the best superhero movies committed to film.
For example, is there any scene in Homecoming where the camera comes close to having kinetic energy of the hospital scene.

 

[spider-neil]

I haven't seen the film yet, but this actually tells me what I need to know. So, as a film, SM2 is superior, but Tom Holland plays a more accurate Spider-Man. Simple and to the point.

Maguire - Good Peter Parker - Terrible (yes, terrible) Spider-Man
Garfield - Peter Parker too good looking (looks and personality 'off') - Great Spider-Man

Holland - Great Peter Parker (looks and personality) - Great Spider-Man

Therefore, Tom Holland is best Peter Parker/Spider-Man ever.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

Maguire - Good Peter Parker - Terrible (yes, terrible) Spider-Man
Garfield - Peter Parker too good (looks and personality 'off') - Great Spider-Man

Holland - Great Peter Parker (looks and personality) - Great Spider-Man

Therefore, Tom Holland is best Peter Parker/Spider-Man ever.

Makes perfect sense to me buddy. I'm not too sure I agree with your critique of Maguire as Spider-Man. I can see why you might feel that way, but I wouldn't say he's terrible.

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

I love sam raimi's style. That hospital scene is straight out of evil dead.

 

[StormC]

I wouldn't say Maguire's Spider-Man is terrible so much as nonexistent.

 

[Darepool]

The discussion on film criticism here was so interesting that as a philosopher I just have to contribute:

There is a real difference between subject and object, or between what knows and what is known. The object is outside the subject, other than it. And criticism is "To evaluate something, and judge its merits and faults." That is, it is the assessment of an object by a subject. And again the object is different to the subject. Therefore, true criticism that is not a hack job is precisely objective - not of private ever-changing reactions to the thing being assessed, but of the qualities of the object itself.

So with this background in place we come to film criticism in particular. What's a good film? Well, in order to answer that we need to answer this: what is the object we call a film? A film is a story told primarily through a visual medium. So we have all its constituent parts: actors, lighting, effects, camerawork, sound, music, etc. And each of these has its own objective criteria. Take lighting. If the shots are so dark you can't see what's going on clearly, you have objectively bad lighting. And so on.

So we can clearly see that criticism is properly an art that perfects us as human beings, therefore requiring training to do properly. Now of course, because we are subjects, some subjective elements are going to colour our critiques of other objects, especially ourselves - this is why we need others to reveal our faults to us so we can improve as human persons - but they should not be given the primacy they are all too often afforded.

Those who maintain art is wholly subjective essentially collapse this distinction between subject and object, which no one has offered a compelling case for as yet.

I'd welcome argument, if anyone cares to give it.

You make good points. Films (or modern film technique) convey to us what to think and feel through (as you said) its constituent parts: actors, lighting, effects, camerawork, sound, music, etc. In a way it's packaged thoughts and emotions, a kind of taxidermy of the 'real' world. I just find that beyond all of this our emotions play a part outside of what the artist intended specifically, although certainly emotions are something he would have tried to evoke. That has to do with our own individual life experiences or even subconscious desires, because really, our own intentions don't really matter because they are not the deepest or most mysterious part of our being, or soul if you prefer. That's where the 'real life' comes in, and something criticism is just inadequate of conveying, which is really beyond what much of it is attempting or designed to do anyway. The way in which we experience life outside of the 'box', where we think we know ourselves but can often be surprised by our actions or reactions which we never thought possible, where we often discover our true selves in those moments beyond conscious thought. Those "Where'd that come from' moments. As a writer I feel this often when I get on a roll and things are just pouring out of me, and I reach emotions or discover 'ideas' that constantly surprise me and which I couldn't have imagined was there...I apologize if this seems like a bit of a ramble (it is), it's late and I have a few beers in me at this point, but I just find it impossible to dismiss this mystery that the simple juxtaposition of images or a few notes of music can evoke within each individual viewer, which goes beyond the simple codified structure of film. Real life doesn't stop happening inside the theater.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

I love sam raimi's style. That hospital scene is straight out of evil dead.

Literally...that scene could EASILY have been an Evil Dead outtake. Hahahaha I love what Raimi managed to do with such a tiny budget, and what does he do when he gets a blank check? The same exact thing...just with a more expensive camera! Bwahahahaha!!!!!

 

[Darepool]

I love sam raimi's style. That hospital scene is straight out of evil dead.

Incredible scene. A pure visceral orgy.

 

[The Joker]

I wouldn't say Maguire's Spider-Man is terrible so much as nonexistent.

He's the second best Spidey after Holland. And he's very much existent.

I love sam raimi's style. That hospital scene is straight out of evil dead.

That scene is a contender for the darkest and most violent scene in a non R-rated CBM.

 

[Iceman]

I didn't really have much of a problem with any of the Spider-men. Just some of the choices taken in certain films.

 

[Faith_Cassidy]

Appropriate that SM2 will have the highest Rotten Tomato score. It's hands down the best movie with Spider-Man in it. SMH has the best Spider-Man. There's a difference.

Meh. SM2 came along at a time when many of the best CBM were yet to made. I don't think it stands up against a film like Batman Begins, which was released a year later and to me is the superior film, aged much bettter than SM2, yet has a 84% on RT. Even if you think SM2 is better, it's not *that* much better. Personally, I don't think there's anything about SM2 that remains memorable today, save the action scenes. You can throw in the music too, I guess, but in the more important aspects like writing and acting, SM2 is pretty mediocre. Certainly, I don't think it holds up well against Homecoming in those categories and the latter gives a far superior PP/SM, all factors that make SMH the better film, regardless of RT score.