Spider-Man: No Way Home

I wrote this part before I saw it, because I wanted to see if it lived up to my hopes:

The trailers look great, but this movie looks soooo fanservicey. Normally I like fanservice, but there has to be something else there as well. I was greatly disappointed by the Arrowverse's "Crisis on Infinite Earths" crossover. It had some really neat references, like showing Tom Welling's Clark Kent from Smallville, but the story itself was underwhelming.

So while I'm looking forward to seeing all the references to the pre-reboot Spidey universes, I really hope the movie is deeper than that.

Ok, so now I've seen the movie, here's my thoughts:

Wow, that's a good movie. (Possible spoilers ahead.)

Yes, it is full of fanservice. But instead of filling it with pointless cameos, this movie actually makes use of its resources. Sure, there are a lot of inside jokes. To get the most out of this movie, you will have to have seen all the Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield movies. There's even a few fourth wall jokes.

But even with all these winks to the audience, there is a solid story here. The characters from previous movies don't just show up without effecting the plot, they are the plot. The story actually makes use of every character. As much as I love the animated "Into The Spider-Verse" movie, I have to admit that it got a little too much mileage out of novelty of showing us alternate Spider-people. But in "No Way Home", it doesn't feel like a novelty. It's more like a family reunion.

Best of all, "No Way Home" legitimatizes the previous continuities. One of the reasons people hate reboots is that they just throw out old continuity, and there goes any investment the viewer may have had in the series. But this movie's premise hinges on the fact that those other continuities are still canon. Alternate universes, sure, but they did still happen. These alternate versions of Spider-Man do exist within the Sony/MCU multiverse.

I was also afraid that "No Way Home" was going to end up being "Doctor Strange 1.5". While it does set up the plot of the next Doctor Strange movie, Strange himself doesn't have quite as much screen time as the trailers would imply. This is 100% a Spider-Man movie (sometimes 300%), that just happens to feature Doctor Strange as a guest character. And while the ending will have future repercussions for Strange, it ties up Spidey's story quite nicely.

I wonder where they'll go from here. Tom Holland says it felt like the final movie for that version of Parker, and wants them to move on to Miles Morales or other Spider-people. But he also sounds open to playing Spider-Man again, as long as he isn't still playing him in his 30s. Some fans are starting to clamor for Sony to finish out Andrew Garfield's trilogy. And the studios, of course, will do whatever they think makes them the most money.

Personally? I do think this is a good time for Tom Holland's Spider-Man to leave the MCU, and let Sony have the property. He's a great character, but he's had a good run. In a perfect world, I'd like them to finish Andrew Garfield's trilogy, but with an ending that passes the torch to Morales. I mean, if the "Amazing" movies are going to be canon, they should at least tie up the loose ends. 

But if they were going to cater to my wishes specifically? I want to see a live action Spider Gwen.

4 Quickies - Ryan & The Rock

I'm on vacation this week, and I've been catching up on a few movies. The COVID booster knocked me on my ass, and the following day I wasn't able to do much but watch movies. 

Here's four movies I've seen in the past couple of weeks. All of them star either Ryan Reynolds or Dwayne Johnson, if not both. I'm a fan of both actors, though neither have shown a lot of acting range. Reynolds has at least proven he can play other characters (see 2005's "The Amityville Horror") but he seems to prefer roles where he can just be himself. Johnson is one of the best wrestler-turned-actors, though it is kind of hard to swallow when he tries to play "normal guy" roles.

Free Guy

This is a fun movie, but not particularly deep. I have a feeling that anybody who actually understands programming gets Dan Browned the entire movie, but it's not like the movie is supposed to be realistic. 

It feels like they combined elements from a dozen other movies like "Ready Player One" and "Wreck-It Ralph", but I see more of Tron than anything else. Not because it takes place inside a computer, but because a huge plot point is that the head of a tech company stole video game code from an ex-employee.

Anyway, it's fluffy but fun.

Jungle Cruise

So years ago, Disney started making movies based on Disney World Rides. "The Country Bears" was a flop, and "The Haunted Mansion" wasn't much better. But "Pirates of the Caribbean" was a huge hit. So how do we replicate that hit? By reusing that movie's biggest plot point. I don't want to spoil it here, but when you see it, you'll know.

Still, it's entertaining, if not completely original. The Rock is funny, the visuals are nice (though some of the CGI could have used more work), and the action is exciting. But it's no Pirates.

Red Notice

A great comedy/thriller along the lines of "The Italian Job" or "Ocean's 11". Lots of plot twists and backstabbing. It's one of those movies where you think you keep spotting plot holes, but most of them disappear when the final twist happens. Reynolds, Johnson, and Godot have a lot of great quips and snappy dialogue.

San Andreas

This is just another action movie along the lines of Volcano or Twister, but it is exciting. Don't expect more than that. If you like disaster movies, you'll have a good time.

The Eternals

This is the first time I've been to a theater since the pandemic started. Before this, the last movie I'd seen in the theater was Birds of Prey (...and the Fantabulous something something). We paid the extra money to see Black Widow on opening weekend on Disney+ (and kind of regretted it), and we also waited for Shang-Chi to come to the channel.

So, did The Eternals live up to the (somewhat low) bar set by Birds of Prey? Um... yeah, but not by much. It's a very pretty movie, and it has a decent plot, but it's LONG. At 2 hours and 37 minutes, it's not quite as long as Endgame, but Endgame earned its length. Two and a half hours is a long time to spend watching characters I don't really care about.

So who are the characters? Well, basically the Justice League, if the Justice League were thousands of years old and completely useless. We've got a guy who flies and has heat vision (they even make a Superman joke about him in the movie), a female warrior with a sort of Amazon vibe, a speedster, and so on. There are also some original powers in there, but nothing to write home about.

There was a lot I liked about the movie. I loved the whole "Trolley Problem" nature of the plot, though this movie's final dilemma reminded me a little of "The Cabin in the Woods" and a lot of a certain Doctor Who episode.

The casting was decent, the acting was good, the special effects were great (except for one horrible CGI character in the mid-credits scene), and the action scenes were exciting. But I just couldn't get invested in these characters. Arguably it's because I didn't know who these characters were going in, but I enjoyed "Guardians of the Galaxy" and "Shang-Chi" despite not being familiar with the characters.

I think humor was a big factor. The Eternals takes itself way too seriously. It does have a few really good jokes, but not nearly enough. It's not nearly as dreary as "Batman V Superman" - at least this movie's in color - but The Eternals could have benefitted from less exposition and more editing. Heck, it even starts with an opening crawl explaining the plot, despite everything getting explained later as well.

One of the biggest problems I had with the movie (besides the length) was the random application of the group's Prime Directive. Never interfere with the natural flow of human history, except when you want to. The Eternals are basically an entire team of Captain Kirks.

Anyway, it was okay, but long. Did I mention that it was long? It's long. It's longer than 1984's "Dune", which I sometimes think I'm still watching today. I really think The Eternals would have been better as a miniseries on Disney+ instead of a theatrical movie. The way it jumps forward and backward in time would really help it there - have each episode start with a flashback before jumping to present day.

I'll update my "Ranking the MCU" list after Spider-Man comes out, but I can tell you that the Eternals will probably be in the bottom 10. This doesn't make it terrible - I love all the MCU films, even the one at the very bottom.  

Btw, it's long.