Stephen King's IT!

I probably haven't said this before but you can probably guess from the kinds of movies that I review on here that I am not a big fan of horror films. As a kid I was afraid of the movie Hocus Pocus, that's the frame of reference that you might have. If you would have talked to me 10 years ago and said there's a new movie coming out that is a new interpretation of a Stephen King novel about an evil clown, I'd be like NOOOOOOOOPE!

But in recent years I think I've been more open to trying to watch more horror-like films. I still don't go out and check out the new Paranormal activity, but especially with story lines like the horror but mostly sci-fi elements of Stranger Things, I've become more interested in suspense thriller films as of late. I've always loved The Shining for it's phenomenal abeyance and great story, I think I'm looking for stuff like that

Then I saw the trailers for the new movie IT.

I don't know what it is about that trailer and the other ones that I have seen but there is just something really intriguing about this film that I have really gone down an IT rabbit hole in the past week or two. I got the audio book and have been blazing through that, I've continued to watch every trailer for this film trying to convince myself to go out and watch it.

And I think one of the ways I have been trying to get myself in the right mode where I'll be ready to see this movie is to watch the original miniseries from 1990.

In 1990, ABC released a miniseries based on the novel by Stephen King simply titled, IT. Based off the 1,138 page book, IT focuses around a group of friends who grow up in the cursed town of Derry, Maine. Not only is the town a little bit off, but all of them seem to be haunted by a mysterious entity they can only really call, It.

Most of the time, It takes the form of Pennywise the Dancing Clown (played by Tim Curry). But other times it takes different forms in it's attempts to capitalize on their worst fears.

The story mainly centers on these friends after they have grown up and moved away from Derry. One of them by the name of Mike Hanlon (played as an adult by Tim Reid, as a kid by Marlon Taylor), who still lives in Derry calls them all back one by one and they begin to have flashbacks of their childhood and the horrific events that occurred there when they were kids.

Each one of them recounts their experience of being apart of The Losers Club back in 1958. This movie came out four years after the success of Stand By Me, I think ABC was trying to recapture the atmosphere of that movie by showing kids back in the day when there weren't cell phones or a lot of TV and kids could just be kids. I mean they also ran away from bullies that were literally murderous... but it was the fifties, that happened everywhere! In Back to the Future they're into full on rape so it was the time?

Anyways, the Loser's Club consists of Bill Denbrough (played as an adult by Richard Thomas, as a kid by Jonathan Brandis), a kid who lost his younger brother Georgie to It when he was young and is still haunted by it; Ben Hanscom (played as an adult by John Ritter, as a kid by Brandon Crane), a kid who was fat when he was younger but became a successful architect; Beverly Marsh (played as an adult by Annette O'Toole, as a kid by Emily Perkins) the only girl of The Losers Club who it seems like all the boys have a crush on and she seems to oddly jump from one to the other; Richie Tozier (played as an adult by Harry Anderson, as a kid by Seth Green) the class clown of the group; Eddie Kaspbrak (played as an adult by Dennis Christopher, as a kid by Adam Faraizl) an asthmatic kid who is babied by his mother; Stanley Uris (played as an adult by Richard Mansur, as a kid by Ben Heller) a Jewish Boy scout who overall is very hesitant to go out and fight It, and of course Mike Hanlon, one of the only black kids in Derry who likes to look into the history of the town.

All together as adults, they start to remember the adventure and horrors they experienced as children and then come together thirty years later to fight It one last time.

Of course the one thing that people really remember about this miniseries was the killer clown, Pennywise, played by Tim Curry. This might have been the movie that started a lot of kids in the 90's fear of clowns.

I haven't gotten all the way through the book but I believe that It takes many forms and it's not always the form of Pennywise. However, I think partly because of this film, the focus of It has been centralized on Pennywise and probably for good reason. Any story good story needs to have a centralized theme or centralized monster and I think that Pennywise makes for a great, unique villain to the story.

The funny thing is, watching this movie in 2017... I can't help but be a little disappointed on how not scary this movie is. I never saw the movie when I was a kid. I had no interest in watching a killer clown for 3 hours. My sister watched it and was apparently scarred for life. I know at the very least, she had a hard time looking down drains for a while. And she's not the only one. I have a plot of people who remember this as an incredibly scary movie and the truth is, it's not.

Yeah, it's got some creepy moments and yeah Tim Curry is gonna be Tim Curry and be a weirdo. But overall, it's pretty tame. I mean it was a TV movie so you can't expect a lot, but aside from some creepy imagery, some creepy atmosphere, and Tim Curry just being Tim Curry, it's actually a little bit laughable, and a lot of that has to do with the acting.

The cast of children aren't horrible and those were actually the parts that I was the most interested in. In fact that's what intrigues me about this new movie. Apparently there is going to be the first part of the book told from the perspective of the Losers Club when they are children and the sequels will focus on them when they are adults. But in this film, they do a weird mixture of adults having flashbacks to when they were kids. To be fair that is what happened in the book, but in this movie where the acting is pretty terrible all around, the kid actors and their story was a lot more interesting than the adults.

It also doesn't help that the only actor in the adult cast that is really well known is the late John Ritter...

Everyone else just kind of melodramatically slops their way through this film and you don't really have a particular character that you particularly like. I actually liked Tim Reid's character probably above anybody else in this cast but he has a little bit smaller of a role because it's more focused on the weird love triangle between John Ritter, Annette O'Toole, and Richard Thomas's characters.

And again, they're all reacting to a silly looking Tim Curry and balloons. And that is something that even the new remake will have to work it's way through. For some reason this movie tried really hard to make silly things like balloons scary.

Also, on an unrelated note, why does everyone in the picture above look like they're posing for a season of Law and Order where they go and prosecute clowns?

One thing I did appreciate about this film was the strange emphasis on the bonds of friendship and the 80's style kid adventures this movie was trying to recreate from influences like Stand By Me.

I'll be honest, part of the reason I got so into IT in the past few weeks has been for the fact that I'm revving up for Stranger Things Season 2, but in a weird twist, part of the reason I loved Stranger Things so much was because of the 80's adventure storytelling that it pulled from properties like IT.

While this miniseries has a lot of poor acting and it is by no means the caliber of storytelling and execution of that story as I think Stand By Me gave us, even when the Losers are grown up, there's still that sense of adventure that makes a group of people, mainly kids, but in this case kids and adults want to go and take out an evil by themselves and with the power of friendship. It's a trend that I don't think has been as prevalent in movies and TV shows as of late and I hope I explained it well enough. But you definitely saw that sense of adventure in IT.

I never went into this movie trying to judge it as a horror film. If I had done that I would have no interest in watching it.

I started this IT bender because I know that the true nature of Stephen King's story is not meant to just scare people but it is meant to tell an adventure. There is a lot of tragedy and death in this story, whether it's in movie, miniseries, or book form, but there is also a lot of intrigue.

The Losers aren't your generic characters in a horror film that aren't developed that well because you know they're going to be picked off one by one by an evil clown, they are really well developed characters who have their own struggles and demons to cross. If you know anything about the kinds of stories that Stephen King writes, you'll know that that is more the focus of his stories.

Now is it done well in the miniseries? Not particularly.

This is mainly due to the performances and the script provided. These kids are not particularly written well and without the budget of a feature film and the effects of... well not the early 90s, this adaptation just comes off as boring at times and silly at times when it's supposed to frighten you.

I think this is why I am so interested in the new remake. I'm a little worried that the film will be more focused on the scares than the characters and the supernatural elements of the story, but I don't know. The embargo on critical reviews was lifted either today or yesterday and the early reviews I've heard say that the movie is pretty damn good.

I'm thinking I will probably have to just grow a pair and watch a scary movie for once. I've done so much preparation so far that it doesn't make a lot of sense for me to not just take that plunge and check out the film in two weeks. I'm hoping that the early reviews are right and the film is entertaining and not just jump scares.

But for now, the miniseries is a pretty funny attempt at telling the story back in the 90s. If you watched this movie as a kid and were scared of it, I truly recommend getting some alcohol and friends together and just popping this one in. There are a couple moments where if I was with friends, we'd be roasting the hell out of this movie that people once considered to be one of the scariest movies of their childhood. There are a couple of good things about the film but overall it's a TV movie mess with poor effects, a PG rating, and Tim Curry just being Tim Curry (Come to think of it, that last one isn't an all bad element of the story).

But what about you? Have you watched the miniseries recently in preparation for the new movie? Are you looking forward to the new movie? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. For a full fledged review that is much more in depth than this one, I highly suggest checking out Doug Walker's review of IT. It's a pretty hilarious review. In the mean time though, there was a Virtual Reality trailer that came out and here is someone who hates getting scared's reaction to it. Enjoy!

Joker Origin Story Rant

So August has been a crazy month for me. I honestly haven't gotten around to watching too many movies. I've been watching some TV and miniseries when I can, but I've been gaming more. I'm hoping to do a review on Uncharted 1 and 2 once I finish both of them. But we are coming up on the end of August and I honestly don't have much to show for it on this blog. I wanted to pad that slim number of posts a little by giving my thoughts on some recent news that I heard yesterday/this morning.

Apparently, DC announced that they are starting production on a new film that will come out oin a few years. And this story has a lot of layers to it that I want to discuss but I'm going to lay it all out at once and give my thoughts on each part individually. This new film that DC is puting out will be a Joker origin film, they will cast a new actor to play The Joker, and it will not be a part of the DCEU. If you follow me regularly on the Movie Symposium, you know that I love my DC films. I want the DCEU to succeed probably more than any set of movies that I have seen in a while and that is why I have high hopes for films like Justice League, and the superheroes that are in that same universe. So when I hear news like this, I get a little concerned. So let's break this down piece by piece.

1. A Joker Origin Story

A Joker origin story does not appeal to me. I'm not saying I wouldn't go and see that movie, especially if I saw a good trailer. Just on face value though, I don't have any interest whatsoever in an origin story on the clown prince of crime.

But further more with that, I don't feel like he's a character that really needs an origin story.

If you know me, you'll know that I don't read comic books that often. I know stories but I haven't read them. I do know that in The Killing Joke, there is a little bit of an origin story to The Joker and why he is the way he is. From what I understand of that story though is that the story is left vague and it might be true or it might not be.

And I think I like that a lot more from a character like the Joker. He is an agent of chaos. He is Batman's opposite. He is such an iconic villain that I can't help but feel like they're creating a really problematic situation for themselves by y doing this. I always go back to the Star Wars Prequels where they tried to make an origin story for one of the most iconic villains of all time in Darth Vader and the result was something that Star Wars is, in a way, still recovering from.

But there's also the fact that the Joker is shrouded in so much mystery that it's almost counter productive to do an origin story for the Joker because part of his charm is the mystery of how he got to that point.

Villains are tricky. Some villains, it works to give them a backstory, give them context. You look at all the MCU TV series on Netflix, most of my favorite episodes of those TV shows like Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, are the episodes where they delve into the backstory of the villain and give us some context. And again, it all depends. Could a Joker origin story work? Maybe, I don't know. I'm not the guy with the brilliant idea to write that.

What I do know is that if you're going off of the past, the Joker has been better when his backstory is vague.

I don't think it's totally fair to always point to Heath Ledger's Joker and compare. At a certain point we need to drop that standard and accept something new. But while we're doing that, I point to the backstory of the Joker in that film. The fact that it was kept vague added to how scary this guy was. There are also comics that point towards a vague origin story and I think it makes the character even more intriguing when you don't know how he ended up the way he did.

Could it be done? Maybe. The movie is going to be produced by Martin Scorsese and directed by the guys who did The Hangover and War Dogs. I wasn't a huge fan of The Hangover films and I haven't seen War Dogs. Overall, it's not a very reassuring pair but Scorsese I guess is the thing that is bringing people over to the side of this Joker film. I'm still skeptical but hey, crazier things have happened.

2. They will cast a new Actor. 

Poor Jared Leto...

I mean I don't feel incredibly bad for him because he is a grown ass man, he'll find work, he still has millions and millions more dollars than I do, and he kind of gives off the pretentious vibe, especially in his "preparation" for the role.

But even still, I feel like everyone was unfairly comparing him to Heath Ledger and the reality is, we didn't really even see that much of him. The Joker was barely in Suicide Squad and I still can't really say whether or not he was bad or not because I barely saw him in that film. I can't say I was totally impressed, but I can't say it was all bad.

But a lot of people are not nearly as forgiving as I am and they had a lot of bad things to say about his interpretation of the Joker. So much that it is really questionable if Leto is even interested in returning as The Joker for another film.

And with this news, it doesn't really sound like DC is really interested in pursuing future films with Leto's Joker. I would like to see them give him another shot but regardless, this does give another actor the opportunity to do something different with the character and create a new interpretation.

Every actor who has taken on the role, including the guys who have voiced him in the animated interpretations have done something different with the role. I think each one has an interesting take and while there are certain interpretations that I liked over the other ones, I'm not totally sure we need another at this moment.

Again it goes back to the idea that I really feel the need to get an origin story or even really a standalone film starring the Joker. This means that there is going to be a whole new casting rumor mill that goes along with this character and while I always love those, I just think we're focusing on recasting a character who we didn't really give an opportunity to really show us what he could do.

But depending on what the true implications of my last point are, it might not even matter because any interpretation, especially Leto's could just be thrown out the window for a Joker in a totally different universe.

3. It's not going to be set in the DCEU.

This is the part that worries me the most. Like I said, if they did a standalone Joker film, or even an origin story, depending on the trailer and the news they had behind it, I could eventually go and see it. I think I've written before, and if I haven't I've definitely thought of it, that if they really weren't impressed with Leto's interpretation, they could just recast the role. Not a very difficult thing and not unprecedented.

The part that really throws me off about this story is that this Joker origin movie is going to not be set in the DCEU and be it's own standalone film...

Now this line of thought has been interrupted a little bit with very recent news that Jared Leto is returning for some of the other films coming out like Gotham City Sirens and Suicide Squad 2. On top of that there are talks that there is going to be a Joker and Harley Quinn movie starring Leto and Margot Robbie.

But even as it stands, it is still very confusing.

The DCEU has had a little bit of a rocky start. I have thoroughly enjoyed all the films that have come out and while I will defend all the DC films that came out in 2016, I know that they were not as good as they could be. Splitting the efforts and having two Jokers is just confusing and doesn't allow for all the creative juices to go into one character, it has to be split between two.

And this isn't the only character that is going to be separate from the cinematic universe being set up by DC.

Apparently the new Batman film coming out simply entitled, The Batman, is rumored to be separate from the DC cinematic universe as well. Now this one isn't as confirmed as the Joker news, Matt Reeves, the director just said it wouldn't be apart of the cinematic universe. Now that could mean that it's not going to be totally connected to the cinematic universe being built but it's still in the same world that has been set up. But it could also be setting up this alternative look at the Batman that isn't Ben Affleck. And I'm not gonna lie, I don't know why they're doing this.

Again, why would you split your creative energy into potentially two cinematic universe when you could simply just make a Batman film set apart from the events of Justice League. I mean Wonder Woman did it and it's not much of a stretch for Ben Affleck's Batman to have other stuff he needed to take care of in Gotham or in Arkham Asylum that doesn't connect to forming The Justice League. I get that mistakes were made in Batman v Superman, but I'm really concerned if they feel they have to create a totally different universe to tell the stories they want to tell.

Now, is there potential here? Yes.

Forgive the hokey picture, but it does show that there are multiple earths and different versions of Batman. In theory, this could open up a totally new world where things are just a tad different in one world and we have multiple Jokers, multiple Batman's and multiple versions of other characters. It's not that strange of an idea. While it doesn't connect to the cinematic universe being set up right now, there could be a new cinematic universe that would eventually lead to a crisis on infinite earths or Injustice scenario down the road. I think that if that were the case it would be a very big undertaking and it would require many movies as opposed to DC's usually MO where they just do one or two films and then blow everything up.  But hey, this could end up being a good thing.

I've always been a big fan of John Campea. He has done a couple of videos surrounding this news and he is very excited and optimistic about this change, almost to a fault. Here's the link to his video. He does bring up a good point that this is a pretty ballsy move for DC in that they are allowing for directors and writers to not be constrained by the cinematic universe and write their own adventures and stories in their own styles and methods. I can't argue with the fact that this opens up a lot of opportunities to do some fun films with little to no restrictions in the style and tone directors want to go with the superhero films.

The only criticism I have with that is that I would be much more open to that idea if I felt that DC had a solid grip on their cinematic universe that they could do these spin-offs without hurting the brand they've created and the universe they've set up. I don't think it's strong enough to set itself apart from the standalone films that apparently aren't going to have anything to do with that universe and I think are just going to detract from that world.

And hey listen, if DC doesn't have faith in their cinematic universe and they want to do something different, just do it! Make the decision that the cinematic universe isn't working and you want to focus on standalone films that may or may not connect. It's worked before, DC has had really great movies in the past that have somewhat connected but never had the Marvel-like crossovers we see so often today.

I just think at this point and time, it would be wiser to pick one or the other and just go with it. Where we stand right now, we're going to get people who like one version of the Joker above the other. We're going to get people who like Ben Affleck more than the new Batman they will for sure cast to do The Batman (hopefully Richard Armitage).

I just think that DC is not at a stable enough point to pull of this very ambitious move and they don't have the track record to fill me with confidence that they're going to stick that landing.

Overall, the choice worries me. Not saying it's the worst choice, but I don't think it's the right one. I'm worried that it's either a soft approach to bowing out of the cinematic universe they're creating, or it's an early attempt to create a multiple world to which I have to say, A) why start with The Joker? and B) this is a very long term risky goal just in order to get two Justice Leagues on screen by 2021.

But what do you think? Do you like the idea of a Joker Origin Story, without Leto, and outside of the cinematic universe already set up? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review or talk about in the future. If you follow me on Twitter you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. This video came out last year and logs the different looks and interpretations on The Clown Prince of Crime. It's actually a pretty interesting walk through history. Enjoy!

Spider-Man: Homecoming

So I saw Spider-man: Homecoming about a week ago. I thought that this review would roll off the keyboard really easily. There's a lot to say about the film and I have actually been really excited but nervous about this film. I've done two reviews on why I was cautious about Spider-man being apart of the MCU and not buying into his character quite yet because the truth was, Spider-man still could have failed at Marvel. 

The reason I haven't written this one yet is because the past week has seen an uptick in work and when I got home over the past week, the only thing I've wanted to do is go to sleep.

But I'm just relaxing now, I thought I'd get on and bang out the regular review for this film. Hopefully I can knock out the spoiler review this weekend but let's take this one step at a time. One of the benefits of waiting a week after reviewing a Marvel movie is you get past the initial shock of the film and you start to pull the things that really were memorable as opposed to cool just when you see it.

Spider-man: Homecoming takes place not that long after the events of Captain America: Civil War. If you watched the trailers, you probably saw Peter Parker (played by Tom Holland) video blogging the events of Civil War like a kid his age in this point in time would do. I do think these scenes would have been funnier if I hadn't seen them already but I'm not a huge stickler for that in this case so I'll let it slide.

A couple months pass by and Peter is itching to become an Avenger and do more missions with his hero Tony Stark (played by Robert Downey Jr.). Stark gives him a new suit that he wants to try out but he feels like he's being held back, especially since he only answers to Stark's bodyman Happy (played by Jon Faverau).

Meanwhile, Peter is making his way through his... freshman? sophomore? year in high school. He's got his buddy Ned (played by Jacob Batalon) who becomes one of the only people to know Peter's secret identity. Now I personally had moments where I wanted to punch that kid in his face. He figures out that Peter is Spider-man and just continuously bugs him about it, especially when they're in public. And then he starts pressuring Peter to use Spider-man for personal gain and I know that leads to a scene where Peter shows his true character as a guy who isn't going to do something like that, but it really made Ned kind of an annoying character more than a helpful side character. Again, he's not bad, he just got annoying at times.

Then there's his friend Michelle (played by Zendaya). I don't know if people liked her in this film, but I didn't. She didn't really do much for the story... like at all and she was just kind of a caricature of the quiet social activist loner for the majority of the film. Think April Ludgate from Parks and Rec except not really funny.

The thing I liked about this cast of high school students was that it was pulling kids who were very similar but they still exemplified both characters from Spider-man lore but also famous stereotypes from classic high school movies with a modern twist. For example, Michelle. While I have a lot to say about her, she was supposed to be inspired by the quiet Allison Reynolds from The Breakfast Club.

Tony Revolori plays Flash Thompson. Now in the past, Flash has been played by strong jock looking guys like Joe Magliano. I thought it was an interesting choice to have him still be a bully but be a bully in Peter's social group. They're in the same organizations and so Peter can't really escape him.

And then there's Liz (played by Laura Harrier). Liz is a senior and obviously she's the girl that Peter has a crush on. These kids aren't the main focus of the film but I thought it was important to point them out because I imagine they'll continue to be characters in future Spider-man outings and I thought they did a good job with them.

The main conflict comes when Peter runs across a gang of criminals armed with alien technology they've harvested from the battlegrounds of past Avenger films. This gang is lead by Adrian Toomes or The Vulture (played brilliantly by Michael Keaton).

And honestly, Keaton is my favorite part of the film. There's a lot to love about this film and I will talk about that, but Adrian Toomes is the best MCU villain to date. I never thought I'd be saying that about The Vulture. A low level street villain who isn't as grandious or impactful as Robert Redford's character in The Winter Soldier, or Ronan the Destroyer from Guardians of the Galaxy. Adrian Tooms is just your normal dude who got put in a shitty situation and decided he wasn't going to take it anymore. He starts his little gang of scavengers and Peter takes it upon himself to do some detective work and figure out who The Vulture is and bring him in. All the while dealing with the realities of life in high school and the responsibilities that come with being Spider-man and growing up.

When Marvel announced that Spider-man Homecoming was going to be a coming of age story, very much in the same vein of a John Hughes film, I was a little wary and I wasn't really wild about that prospect.

I personally thought that we've seen enough of Spider-man in highschool, why don't we switch things up like do adult Spider-man, or maybe Miles Morales. Just doing high school Peter Parker seemed like it was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

But this film is a coming of age super hero story. And when I say that, I mean that this is Spider-man's origin story without it actually being his origin story. We've heard the same stuff over and over again about how Peter Parker was bit by a radio active spider and he is blessed with fantastic powers that make him Spider-man, but when his uncle dies he learns the lesson of with great power comes great responsibility. We know all of that. This is Spider-man going from your neighborhood Spider-man into a true hero and that was the great part about the character.

While Spider-man has been doing this for a little bit, he is still getting his wits about him and trying to figure out exactly how to be the superhero he wants to be. Along the way he gets some help from Iron Man, but this is definitely not an Iron Man team up movie. Robert Downey Jr shows up about 4 times in the entire film but he's more of an idol for Peter to try and impress. That along with the fact that he's maneuvering his way through high school, just makes this a really great story that I didn't know that I wanted but when I saw it I just really enjoyed it. And the other part was, it didn't feel too pandering.

One thing Marvel has been doing with their films as of late is basing it way too much on the humor of situations and not really taking themselves too seriously... And they still do that in this film and it's annoying. But one of the ways they do that is usually jumping onto some kind of gimmick or comedic ploy like the music or references to either past films to make the nerds geek out or old movies to make you feel like some kind of classic feel to it that isn't usually there.

With Spider-man Homecoming, I felt as though they were trying to put a flavor of humor and nostalgia into the film and it worked a little bit better than it has in the past. There were a couple 80s movie references that were kind of fun, the music was entertaining, and overall it just had the feeling of a coming of age story that I really liked.

Now does everything work in this film? No. I thought the pacing was a little bit off. It's a delicate balance this movie had to go through in having it be a superhero film and be a high school coming of age tale. I think the movie manages to be both a lot of the time but at other times it feels oddly paced and a little uneven on certain places.

Also... I hate when they do this but this movie seemed to ether be promoting movies that I don't think have even been put into development yet, or they just got a bunch of people to come play roles that didn't need that much star power behind.

For example, Donald Glover plays this street criminal named Aaron Davis. Davis is supposed to be the uncle of Miles Morales and was really only put in this film to tease the audience about a future of Morales coming into this universe. Again, time is being taken out of this film to plug another movie that hasn't even started production yet.

And why the hell was Hannibal Buress in this film. He just plays the gym teacher in this film and he maybe has like 5 lines in total. Buress is a funny guy... why was he even in this film.

But man I hope Tom Holland stays our Peter Parker for a while. He's incredibly charming and he does a great job at blending the two personas of Peter Parker the timid kind hearted nerd and Spider-man the cocky spunky hero. I think what I liked about this interpretation, and maybe this is just comparing against Macguire and Garfield is that, again, this is a coming of age story and he's figuring out his voice, not only as a masked vigilante, but as a kid. He also didn't spend so much time making banter about the bad guys and just saved the day a lot better. He was written very well.

I don't think he shined nearly as much as Michael Keaton did as Adrian Toomes, but on one hand you've got Tom Holland, an up and comer who is younger than I am, and then you've got Michael freaking Keaton. It's not exactly a fair comparison.

I want to watch this film again and get an idea how I really feel about it. I liked it because it was a confined story. It didn't over the top grand, but it was a personal story and you need those. It also had more heart than the other more recent personal stories like Ant-Man or Doctor Strange. It's still a little early to see exactly what I think of it but right now, I highly recommend going out to check out Spider-man: Homecoming.

But those are my thoughts on Spider-man: Homecoming. What did you think of it? How does it compare with the Sam Rami Spider-man films and how does it compare to the Marc Webb Spider-man films? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @MovieSymposium as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. So a while back there was a film of Andrew Garfield reacting to the new Spider-man trailer. Then it was Tobey Macguire reacting to that video and now it's Tom Holland reacting to all of it. Enjoy!