Meddling Kids Book Review

Had Stranger Things been an anthology, this would have been an excellent second season.

Meddling Kids, by author Edgar Cantero, is a very fun homage to Scooby Doo and HP Lovecraft, clearly having a great time playing with some of the tropes from each source. Combine that with a decent amount of nostalgia, hefty dose of metaphors, plus the occasional meta, and Meddling Kids makes for an engaging pulp read.

I did have a hurdle in the first portion, getting familiar with the style (there were lots of references and the word choices felt like someone was having too much fun with the thesaurus), but once the story started going, it fell into a groove that didn't let up until the very end. That said, some action towards the end muddled things a bit, but the great characters and writing were enough to overcome any minor disruptions.

For a healthy mix of horror and comedy, Meddling Kids gets a solid RECOMMENDED.

I do mean it when I say I'd love to see this as either a movie or TV series, though 6-episode TV series would be ideal.

Justice League Movie Review

*MILD SPOILERS*

The first thing to acknowledge about Justice League is maybe the easiest thing to say about it:

It's a mess.

But what does that mean exactly? Well, your mileage may vary with both how much you enjoy the movie and how good you think it is.

As for me, I certainly didn't hate the movie as much as Man of Steel (which I consider to be the worst movie I've seen in theaters in the past decade, if not ever), nor was I as bored as I was during Suicide Squad, but it didn't have nearly enough of the good will of Wonder Woman or surprisingly entertaining tonal consistency of Batman vs Superman's extended edition (despite disagreements with the overall creative direction; I'm not bothering with the theatrical version).

My main gripes with the movie are:

• I stopped caring - Shortly into the movie, I realized I didn't care about anyone or anything that was on screen. Neither the plots nor performances were particularly exciting. Ben Affleck's Batman alternated between disaffected and disinterested, with a good chunk of dry smarm and wit to feign engagement. Cyborg's exaggerated movements were also awkward. 
• The film really needed breathing room - The editing, pacing and timing were rushed in a way that gave the movie a really awkward tone. Part of this may have been due to the split-directing duties between Zach Snyder and Joss Whedon, but there's a good chance the movie was a mess during the script. Speaking of which...
• The script - Clunky dialogue, cheesy lines, random (retroactive) introductions of plots/character motivations via dialogue, lack of subtlety - the film needed another pass on both the dialogue and the script.
• The music - Why did Danny Elfman replace Junkie XL? Despite my general dislike of both Man of Steel and Batman vs Superman, the music for both was of high quality. The lack of Superman's theme and other recent themes really hurt Justice League. Not to mention the very random inclusion of the Burton Batman theme detracted from the experience. Very, very disappointing. 
• The CG - This was really, really not good. From the blandness of Steppenwolf's face to the blandness of the terraforming. Sure, it led to some pretty flowers, but everything looked like visual crap, despite the big budget...

I could list more, but I'll try to summarize: the film was a very mediocre and underwhelming debut for DC's first-class team. I can't say that I was disappointed, because that meant I would have expected better from the current DC Extended Universe, although in seeing the movie that meant I unfortunately financially supported it. 

Had this been an entry in the DC Animated Movie universe, I'd have been perfectly contented. Hell, if all the rest of the Snyder-verse DC movies could be relegated to much cheaper DCAM versions, that may be the best win-win scenario - give people these stories with these characters and not continue with the exorbitant costs and missed live-action opportunities. 

That said, the film did do a few things well:

• Superman - Other than a debatable return, once Superman remembered who he was, we're finally able to see the "beacon of hope" Superman as played by Henry Cavill. Had this been the Superman from the get go, perhaps the DCEU course would be in a more positive direction. Note, though, that this movie is a giant refresh for Superman, with previous ones almost taking place in parallel dimensions, considering how different this Superman is.
• The Flash and Cyborg's banter - Other than one or two cringe-worthy jokes, they had a nice rapport.
• The overall team dynamic - Excusing script and performance issues, the team actually seemed motivated to work together to get the job done. They recognized each others strengths and tried to encourage each other to be the best versions of themselves. 

When it's all said and done, I would suggest either waiting to see the movie on cable, where commercial breaks may help disrupt the flow of the movie in a good way, or an extended edition of the film is released which hopefully reinserts some much-needed breathing room. Until then, Justice League is NOT RECOMMENDED. If you want some great Justice League content, watch the complete run of Justice League Unlimited. 

Dark City Director's Cut Review

I recently rewatched the Director's Cut of Dark City and hot damn is it a good, fun movie. I love the art direction, production design (seriously, the visuals are so cool) and especially the music by Trevor Jones. The general noir style is pretty great, though some of the trappings (misogyny) leave much to be desired (women aren't given great material, nor non-white characters).

This is the kind of movie I would love to make, as I think Dark City does a couple really cool things rather well:

1) Editing and pacing (and script) - The film only shows you enough, typically via quick glimpses, and yet its very effective at conveying the message, story and mood. Similarly...
2) Dialogue - Characters are able to say so much by saying so little. I particularly love a few of the dialogue choices with the main character, John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell), in that he knows something another character doesn't and either asks them a question or phrases his sentence in a specific way to not reveal anything; nicely done. It helps that the film is beautifully crafted, with a wonderful villainous turn by Richard O'Brien as Mr. Hand.

Not to mention, how many movies end with a really, really kick-ass telekinesis fight? Dark City features easily one of the best "psychic" fights ever filmed. Plus, the themes and ideas regarding memory and how that determines who we are? Very cool.

It's unfortunate that Dark City has become somewhat "lost in time." Had The Matrix not come out the following year (1999), I wonder if Dark City would have been more influential. Granted, something like The Matrix would have surpassed it at some point, because there's a bit more commentary and depth with The Matrix (more to the world and story that's relatable), but it could have been nice for Dark City to have had more of an impact.

To reiterate on one of the early points, it's a damn shame Trevor Jones isn't a more famous composer. His score for the film is perfectly atmospheric, suspenseful, exciting and action-packed - there are some great themes I just want to wrap myself in as if they were a blanket. I'd argue he's created at least three top-tier scores:

Dark Crystal
Dark City
Merlin

Excalibur may also be included, among others (Labyrinth).

While the Director's Cut is arguably the superior version to the theatrical, Dark City is easily HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. Hopefully it's legacy will only grow with time. It's such a beautifully 90s movie that must be scene at least once.

Thor Ragnarok Review

Thor: Ragnarok is a fine, if not very fine, movie, which I mean in a good way (and not just for the talent involved).

Ragnarok seemed very much like director Taita Waititi's Batman Returns, in that he very much gets to tell a story he would normally tell, but with so many toys and characters and things to play with in the Marvel Universe.

As Marvel's third movie in 2017, Ragnarok struck me as the better versions of GOTG2 (space-fairing adventure) and Spider-man: Homecoming (comedic action), despite not being able to learn any of the lessons from either release due to production schedules. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Ragnarok shares many of the same plots and beats as GOTG2, but is what I'd argue to be the clearer superior movie.

However, I'm a bit mixed on the beginning, which was a little wonky and out-of-character for Thor, but "enough" humor (as not every bit hit) and certainly the action helped.

I LOVED so many little details (the dragon's eye roll) in Ragnarok. Taika's very good with details and building worlds. There's lots of intelligence with his movies, both in details and the script.

Acting-wise, I loved so many newcomers: Valyrie (Tessa Thompson) and  Hela (Cate Blanchet) were both awesome, kick-ass and sexy (while not being objectified); Jeff Goldblum (Jeff Goldblum) was lots of fun; and Taika Waititi was a scene-stealer in his role. For returning members, Loki (Tom Hiddleston) was pretty good, though a more mature (particularly emotionally) version, to an extent (though his plot was semi-moronic, unless everything was part of Loki's journey because it's a path he was already on...). Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Odin (Anthony Hopkins) seemed rather different from their normal selves, which isn't necessarily bad, just different (e.g. Batman Returns). Hopkins gets some big bonus points, as I loved his bit as Loki-Odin - I won't say anything more.

Regarding story, though, there was something ultimately kinda flat about the movie for me, with the stakes never really feeling that high or low. Thankfully, however, Ragnarok lacked scenes that undercut the emotion and drama like in Spider-man: Homecoming (so maybe it did learn something). It also lacked the general amateur storytelling skills in GOTG2. Disappointingly for me, and your mileage may vary, it never got quite as high as I think it could have (it did have a ton of the right beats, though).

Having now watched three of Waititi's movies (Ragnarok, Hunt for the Wilderpeople and What We Do in the Shadows), Taika may be a better version of a modern Terry Gilliam, in that he's able to be so unique with his voice and have knowledge of and intelligence for utilizing different mediums and methods. His films are art.

That said, I'd love to see him develop and direct more TV pilots, as those three movies of his I've seen (Thor, Wilderpeople and Shadows) and indicative - Taika leaves me wanting more at the end, in both good ways and bad.

All said and done, Thor Ragnarok gets a strong RECOMMENDATION from me as a solid movie. It's a world I'd like to return to, as the comedy, visuals and music (and shoutout to the score by Mark Mothersbaugh) gel together in a fun way, which is exactly what Taika set out to do.

Movies on plane August 2018 part 2

Watched some more movies on a plane in August, so here are some thoughts...

Sleepless in Seattle
I'm not sure how common or uncommon this is, but I actually saw this film after seeing You've Got Mail. Highly lauded as an early 90's romantic comedy, it certainly has its charm in the ways that writer-director Nora Ephron is so highly capable. As expected, there's lots of great scenework and fun dialogue, particularly the scene with Meg Ryan and Rosie O'Donnell watching a movie. As well, the acting is top-notch, considering the relatively ridiculous central conceit of the show (falling in love over listening to the radio), which is hard to overlook.

However, the film is so effective at being a cute throwback to older Hollywood romance movies it sucked me in enough to suspend my disbelief about basically everything plot-wise after the first 30-minutes of the movie (that kid has god-like powers).

Between the two films, I prefer You've Got Mail, but Sleepless in Seattle is still RECOMMENDED.

The Devil Wears Prada
As another movie I'd heard so much about over the years, I was looking forward to finally watching The Devil Wears Prada. As expected, Meryl Streep created an almost instantly iconic, nuanced, understated and yet larger-than-life character in Miranda Priestly, though based on a real-life counterpart. Anne Hathaway does a largely fine job of holding her own against both Streep and Priestly, but...

Can we talk about how awkwardly this movie is structured / paced, particularly for Hathaway's character Andy Sachs? Don't worry, it's a rhetorical question.

Prada starts simple enough with the disinterested Sachs getting the highly sought-after position, with a natural arc of heading towards the "dark side" as a potential ally / partner to Priestly, but it does so in such an odd path. Basically, Sachs keeps trajecting upwardly, even when screwing up or when things go wrong. For her, it's just up and up and up; though maybe her arc is more like a staircase.

While yes, it makes sense from a story perspective for her to see Priestly's perspective and tease being on the dark side, the film avoids almost any opportunity to really explore the depths and pathos of the consequences of these actions. It misses out two-fold:

1) Exploring Andy's perspective as she goes on this journey. It's just constantly moving onto the next thing, onward and upward. No living in the past, just moving forward. Which makes for an interesting character choice, but also very odd and rather cold; which may be the point, but makes for an odd anchor for the audience, or at least me.
2) Exploring Miranda's perspective, particularly in her one key scene, which serves as the preview of the end of Andy's path if she continues on it.

Neither character really pauses to question what's going on - the plot keeps running forward. And while yes, that's not what this movie is, it would have made for a great opportunity. Instead, the comedy of the film removes any great dramatic beats. Unfortunately, I didn't find the comedy strong enough as a comedy movie.

As such, Prada is only MILDLY RECOMMENDED. The acting, particularly from both Streep and Stanley Tucci, are great, but the plot and general character of Andy Sachs left much to be desired. Note: I haven't read the book, and that the story is apparently based on real life does have some impact on things, I'm sure. I suppose if I viewed this more as a character study than standard story, I'd appreciate it more.

Movies on plane August 2018 part 1

John Wick Chapter 2 
John Wick 1 and 2 are not for me, as much as I'd love to like them.

I have three issues with this one:
1) The assassins (particularly Reeves and Common), and others, are trying too hard to be cool like the opening scene of The Matrix: Reloaded; which is bad.
2) Much as I respect physical actual action, this is just a bunch of Reeves awkwardly bobbing around with a gun near his head. Then when he's close, it's just spin everyone around before popping everyone in the head. Speaking of which...
3) If I wanted to watch Headshots: The Movie, I'd rather watch a "Let's Play" of Goldeneye 64 in Big Head mode on easy difficulty.

There are again teases of an interesting world, but the film follows characters I don't really care about and the most basic, basic, basic, basic story around: mess with John Wick = you die. It was boring and flat. Maybe I'd enjoy it more with a better director?

Unless you enjoyed the first movie, John Wick Chapter 2 is sadly NOT RECOMMENDED, but please go see it anyway and judge for yourself.


Ghost in the Shell
There are actually some decent things good in the film, such as production design, generally costumes and some elements of the story (the metaphysical, the villain mostly).

But there are indeed some problems in the movie, too, particularly with how much they messed with Major's origin and made it such a central point (save it for the second or simplify what was done), adding an origin to Bato's eyes and casting him with a New York accent (or whatever that crappy accent was), not to mention criminally under-utilizing the rest of the Section 9 team. Had the story focused more on them being a solid team, having good banter, but still having political machinations, it would have been better. I'm positive a minor recut of the movie will go a long way.

As for the controversy of the casting and whitewashing, it wasn't an issue to me as she's in a shell - a supposedly generic shell, per the show and mange (another movie fuck-up). Hell, once she got a better idea of her origin, she could have modified her shell for a not-going-to-happen-now sequel. Would giving the role to an Asian actress have been preferred? Absolutely. But her being whitewashed/her identity taken away was part of the story and not a bad idea for a story.

Despite its number of issues, Ghost in the Shell is RECOMMENDED, but maybe just barely. I wish either this version were better or there's a sequel that could show off just how good the property is, but maybe that's what the Stand Alone Complex anime series is for (particularly the second season).


Kong: Skull Island
It's a total B-movie, but hot damn is this fun. Easily my now second favorite movie of the year, considering how underwhelming this year has been (first is Get Out). Kong has some cliches with the 70s setting re: music and the military, but things just work and click due to some excellent direction and editing.

Sure, the characters don't really exist outside maybe Sam Jackson's character, but it's not really the point - Kong is the central figure of the story and he completely owns this movie. We just happen to be seeing Kong through these rando's eyes. Then again, John C Reilly was so much fun!

Also, give the team that brought this Kong to life all of Andy Serkis' future work. This Kong was so much more compelling than Peter Jackson's version, which I've admittedly forgotten. Then again, it may have just been the movie, on the whole.

Either way, I'm completely onboard with the sequel and can't wait. The post-credits sequence is arguably the second best ending of the year (first goes to Split; third may be the post-credits from Spider-man: Homecoming).

Your enjoyment of B-movie cheese may vary, but Kong: Skull Island is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED by me. I'm sad I missed out on this in theaters, as I'm sure it'd have been quite the experience.

The Big Sick Review

To get to the point, The Big Sick is a highly enjoyable earnest romantic comedy that does an excellent job of promoting the importance of love in our lives.

Filled with great acting, the cast brings a number of honest moments to life, for better and worse. From awkwardness to tension, the emotions are both real and relatable. The family dynamics are a particular enjoyment.

While the movie does follow an archetypal love story (boy gets girl, etc.) and is very much a relatively youthful "of our time" story (trying to avoid "millennial"), the execution and specific content help Sick stand out. It's very refreshing that the film highlights the value of love and how it's so much more pure than dishonesty, guilt, fear, traditions and societal pressure. When we can learn to love and accept each other, the world is a better place.

Then again, we are just human, as the film so greatly shows.

With plenty of charm and laughs to spare, The Big Sick is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. Special props to Ray Romano for stealing so many scenes with his more deadpan delivery, as well as both Kumail and Emily for telling (and in Kumail's case acting in) this story.

Baby Driver Review

I wish I liked Baby Driver. I really do. But sadly, I don't.

I go back and forth as to whether it's just a film that "wasn't for me" or if it's actually a bad movie. It's possible it's a mix of both.

To start, there's a lot to like about the film:

• The coloring/general look
• The costumes and character designs - Seriously, these are ridiculously good.
• The casting, for the most part
• Jon Hamm - so much, he's easily one of the best parts of the movie
• Kevin Spacey - for the most part
• Jamie Foxx - delectably wicked
• Eiza González - delicious, but... (see below)
• CJ Jones - solid, with the bare minimum / basic material he was given
• Edgar Wrights attention to detail
• A generally straight-forward and simple throwback story
• Practical effects
• The drama, for the most part - Particularly the end (see further below)

Then, there's a handful of things I'm mixed on, with the first one being pretty important: 

• Ansel Elgort - If the lead actor is one I'm mixed on, that's a really tough spot for a movie. He has an interesting arc during the movie and shows some good talent, particularly with his choreography, but Baby is one of the least interesting characters in his movie. His retro style (along with Lily James' Deborah) was very shrug inducing.
• Tonal inconsistency - Baby starts out so happy-go-lucky despite spending half a life in this job (and seriously, only now do things start going poorly?), but things get dark fairly quickly. I get the story of innocence lost, but it felt uneven in this story - characters being overly intense or too schmaltzy and "happy." There's such a great human story in Baby Driver that gets hurt by almost everything around it. 

But with a film that's generally style over substance, the things that "didn't do it for me" really bring the film down:

• Almost all the music - I rarely recognized the songs or found them enjoyable
• The choreography of almost everything to the music - I can appreciate the style and choreography, but with the challenge of the point above, it makes it that much more difficult
• The implausible action sequences - I get doing a stylized action movie, but I could never suspend my disbelief enough to buy into the stylized editing and fast pacing, trying to dive into the action and experience of Baby. This happens for pretty much every action sequence with cops, as I could never buy them responding or chasing Baby the way they did. Hell, even the way Baby acts, particularly while on foot. The implausible sequences become that much worse in comparison to the dramatic action.
• The Women - Yeesh. There wasn't a single woman in this movie that wasn't a character in relation to a man (Debora, Darling, Baby's Mom). Homage movie or not, Debora was too cheesy and retro for me. Darling was better, as she was almost a character, but the sexualization of her was a bit on the much side. Baby's Mom was largely so throwaway, more of an idea than a character.
• Kevin Spacey - For the small part, as great as his voice is, his "70s narrator"-style dialogue and delivery was a little too much for me, but slightly more than that his SPOILER character turn at the end seemed a bit uneven, though nicely in service of the general story of the movie
• Jon Bernthal - Seemed a little too out of left field for how dark and challenging he was of Baby. It set an odd vibe and tone to the start of the movie.
• Wright's "cleverness" - There were too many times where Wright would go for a joke, either spoken or visual, that just fell flat or rang hollow because it was too obvious how clever it was trying to be (much like Tarantino's often masturbatory dialogue). The best jokes were ones that were honest reactions by the characters.

To be fully transparent, similar to Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2, the film lost me with the opening sequence with Baby dancing in the car, followed by the second half of the opening with the title sequence (or vice versa, I forget the order despite writing this the same night as watching). I then greatly struggled from there to get into it - there were tiny nuggets along the way, but I wanted to walk out probably 5 times in the first 30 minutes alone. 

Then again, the final act is pretty solid, particularly when Wright uses his great stylistic skills to highlight the thematic and character elements at play vs shallow style timed to music that detracted me from the movie. 

I honestly would love to do a recut of the movie to try and cut out the (stylized) parts I didn't care about - even if that means making the movie 30-45 minutes; hell, I'd LOVE to do a recut of the movie with whatever footage they shot, including picking new songs, etc. - I do enjoy the core story presented. The more I think about it, the more I realize how much more interesting Jon Hamm is in this movie than Baby, and the movie I'd like to see is more of their stories being at odds with each other.

Regardless of my enjoyment or lack thereof, Edgar Wright is an unprecedented technical, narrative and stylized director. Give him more work and stories to tell. 

Though Baby Driver didn't work for me, I'd still RECOMMEND the movie as it's one you should see and judge for yourself. Hell, you may greatly enjoy it! Heck, maybe I'd enjoy it more on a rewatch. Until then, Scott Pilgrim and Shaun of the Dead are the two Wright movies I enjoy the most.

Glow Season 1 Review

Glow!

In a way, I just want to leave the review as that one, simple exclamatory word - but where's the fun in that? Consider that the short review.

To put it simply with more words, I love this show. As someone who loves the highs of pro wrestling, Glow did the medium justice, not only with an excellent first season, but numerous cameos and inside jokes. Granted, while it did take a few episodes to find its footing, once it did, Glow had a really nice flow. This first season is the perfect refreshing summer show for 2017.

There are so many great themes Glow touches on that were simultaneously relevant when the promotion debuted in the 80s and with the debut of the show on Netflix in 2017 - sexism, racism, politics (Russia vs the US, to name one), feminism / lack of opportunities for women... to name a few. While the show does a deft job of featuring these themes, it has such a light tone that it allows the real focus to shine:

The characters.

Glow is such a delightful ensemble that I was sad when the first season ended. I want more! The season, like it's wrestling subject matter, built so beautifully to its seasons finale main event that I can't wait to see what happens next. Again, that's all because there are so many great, great characters. As nice as the two leads, Ruth and Debbie, are, who's backgrounds allow for an easy entry into the world of the show (an actress looking for a meaty part and a former-actress-turned-housewife looking for a release), I would gladly have seen more focus on literally any of the supporting characters:

Cherry Bang - Also an actress, but black, stereotyped and much more physically capable
Carmen Wade - Has industry legacy, trying to break away from family
Justine Biagi - Great story, won't say more
Sheila - Trying to find acceptance, aka get over

And then the myriad of other characters who didn't have much exploration, such as Arthie Premkumar or Tammé Dawson, played gloriously by actual (former?) wrestler Kia Stevens, let alone Rhonda, Reggie, Melrose, Jenny... the list goes on.

Hell, I would have also been fine with following either Sam or Bash, played brilliantly by Marc Meron and Chris Lowell respectively, though that would take away from the premise of the show. If I could give Emmy's to Marc, Chris and Kia today, I would - to steal a line from wrestling's great JR, they maximized their minutes every time.

Regardless, what I'm trying to get at is there are so, so, so many great, great characters in this show and I simply can't get enough of following their adventures.

Big props to the writing on the show, which shows great admiration for pro wrestling, even taking a number of the storylines and tropes found within the industry and using them in a meta way for the series. If there were a way to have this quality of writing on a weekly basis, I'd tune in every week. I wish more TV shows were written like this, with nice arcs that build toward "main events."

I could keep talking and rambling about the show, but seriously - at this point, just go watch the show! It's 10 well-paced episodes. The dramatic moments worked hand-in-hand to make the comedy, and show, that much better.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. Netflix - please fast-track season 2!

Spider-Man: Homecoming Review

Spider-man: Homecoming is the Star Wars: The Force Awakens of the MCU/Spider-man movies. And that's fine. For the quick review: If you're curious about the movie, go see it. It's an enjoyable summer blockbuster for which a big audience will greatly help.

As for a more extended spoiler-free review...

The fast pacing/editing of the film helps it become Marvel's funniest movie yet, easily glossing over a number of conveniences in the story, but sadly ruining any dramatic moments. There were a number of what should have been great dramatic character moments that were undercut by poor setup, the previously mentioned fast pacing or just awkward editing. Indeed, subsequent scenes progress as if nothing happened.

Regarding acting, Tom Holland is an excellent Peter Parker / Spider-man. He exudes a natural intelligence and charisma, creating two distinct personalities for the two personas (the awkward Peter and confident Spider-man).  While it was great seeing Michael Keaton on screen, particularly as a villain, I found his character to lack real motivation - it felt more contrived for the story Marvel / Sony wanted to tell than actually fitting of the character - why did he have such a grudge / the motivation he had? Better writing would have helped him greatly. At least Marvel tried to do a villain justice with this one, though.

The supporting character were lots of fun (Ned, Liz, Michelle, Flash), but ultimately created in service of Peter - I look forward to seeing them fleshed out. Aunt May was a particular victim of this. While Marisa Tomei is fun in the role, Aunt May was mostly around to be sexualized, providing Peter very little of the dramatic character motivation (and reminder of Uncle Ben) that's such an integral part of Spider-man.

As for the core MCU characters, Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) and his assistant/friend Happy (Jon Favreau) did fine, but felt largely unnecessary. However, Chris Evans as Captain America stole every one of his cameos.

As a hybrid installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, along with Sony's own Spider-man franchise, there are a TON of fun Easter Eggs and cameos that make the film a treat to watch, though also more of a Marvel movie than Spider-man, per se. Unlike with the Amazing Spider-man movies, I look forward to the pending "Spider-man Cinematic Universe" - it's been set-up nicely so far.

For music, following in the footsteps of Danny Elfman, Christopher Young, James Horner and Hans Zimmer, Michael Giacchino's score was underwhelming and ancillary - it nicely helped accentuate what was happening on-screen, but ultimately unmemorable. It kept teasing the retro theme used in the Marvel logo, but never built to it in the film. On a side note, of the pantheon of Spider-man composers, Christopher Young is my favorite of the bunch for his work on Spider-man 3 and contributions to Spider-man 2.

All of the above said, Spider-man: Homecoming is definitely RECOMMENDED. It's a fun time, but more of an intro chapter/return-to-form than proper Spider-man movie. Regardless, I'm looking forward to more Spider-man.