Movie Review

Spider-Man: No Way Home brings emotion and multiverse into MCU

The evolution of Spider-Man as a movie character has been one of the more interesting things to watch in the superhero era. Starting in 2002 with Tobey Maguire, who made three films, and followed by two films with Andrew Garfield and now three films with Tom Holland (not to mention a highly-popular animated film), the character has endured because of Peter Parker’s innate relatability as a high school kid with newfound powers.

The latest film, Spider-Man: No Way Home, has a lot of stakes to it, serving as not just a continuation of Holland’s version of the character, but also moving forward the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which Spider-Man officially joined in 2016’s Captain America: Civil War. Here, he joins forces with another Marvel character, Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), after the reveal of his true identity has made life for him and the people he loves tough to handle.

Peter asks Doctor Strange to conjure a spell that would make people forget who he was, but when he requests that loved ones like his girlfriend MJ (Zendaya), best friend Ned (Jacob Batalon), and Aunt May (Marisa Tomei) be exempt from the spell while Strange is doing it, things start to go awry. Soon, villains from previous Spider-Man franchises – like Doc Ock (Alfred Molina), Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe), and Electro (Jamie Foxx) – start showing up, an indication that the spell has made multiple universes collide.

Directed by Jon Watts and written by Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers, the team behind all three of the latest Spider-Man movies, the film feels both big and small at the same time, and definitely smaller than the trailer seemed to promise. That’s not a knock, but rather a hearty endorsement, as the focus on the relationships Peter has with MJ, Ned, Aunt May, and others ends up being just as important as any of the CGI-filled fights.

In fact, moviegoers may find themselves surprised at how emotional the movie becomes. The filmmakers deliver a lot of fan service, especially for anyone who’s watched all eight Spider-Man films, but they do so in a way that never feels cheap or unearned. Peter also faces a level of personal angst that he had not reached in his previous MCU appearances, giving Holland plenty of opportunities to show off his acting abilities.

There are a few nitpicks to be had with the story in general (how does J.K. Simmons’ J. Jonah Jameson, who’s only appeared in the original Spider-Man trilogy, exist in this universe prior to Strange’s spell?), but as with all MCU films, it’s better not to over-analyze story choices. Having multiple villains to face ends up being less about Spider-Man being able to defeat them all and more about establishing once and for all the type of person that Peter Parker is.

While Holland has been very enjoyable in the role in previous films, he hadn’t been asked to stretch much as an actor. This film shows off a different side and he handles it exceedingly well. Zendaya makes her part feel bigger than it actually is and demonstrates why she’s a star in the process. While it’s great to see all of the villains again, only Dafoe comes off as truly menacing.

Spider-Man: No Way Home may not be as thrilling as some fans hope, but it more than makes up for any lack with a story that stays true to who Spider-Man/Peter Parker is. He can be a superhero while still maintaining the bonds he holds near and dear.

---

Spider-Man: No Way Home opens in theaters on December 17.

Tom Holland in Spider-Man: No Way Home.

Tom Holland in Spider-Man: No Way Home

Photo by Matt Kennedy

Tom Holland in Spider-Man: No Way Home.

Movie Review

Andrew Garfield leads peasant rebellion in medieval film The Uprising

Andrew Garfield in The Uprising

Photo by Betina La Plante/Focus Features

Andrew Garfield in The Uprising.

Writer/director Paul Greengrass made his name with a cinéma vérité style of filmmaking that brought immediacy and depth to three Jason Bourne films, United 93, Captain Phillips, and more. In The Uprising, he uses those skills to tell the story of the so-called Peasants’ Revolt in 14th century England.

Greengrass wastes no time starting the main plot as Ploughman (Andrew Garfield) and his fellow villagers object to onerous taxes put on them by the country’s nobility, led by the young King Richard II (Woody Norman), to fund an ongoing war. Ploughman initiates a violent response over the tone-deaf — and unseemly — way the king’s guard go about their business, and the rebellion soon starts to spread across the countryside, with the citizens looking for a degree of autonomy.

The ever-expanding group makes their way toward London to try to make their case to the king himself. Meanwhile, the king’s top advisors, including Archbishop Sudbury (Stephen Dillane) and Treasurer Hales (Tom Hollander), try to usurp power from the inexperienced monarch even as the king’s mother (Katherine Waterston) tries to get him to be more assertive.

The history of the English monarchy is long and lurid, as Shakespeare detailed in multiple plays, including Richard II. Though the events in the film took place almost 650 years ago, it’s easy to see parallels between what the peasants were fighting for and modern-day politics. Greengrass’ storytelling intent is solid, and the righteous anger the citizens feel is initially relatable and palpable.

But the populism theme of the story soon gets bogged down in drudgery and minutiae that is difficult to understand, especially when the details are lost in the thick regional English accents. The leaders of the rebels — including John Ball (Jamie Bell), Wat Tyler (Cosmo Jarvis), and Alyce (Thomasin McKenzie) — are shown doing a lot of planning, but the strong feelings they have about their quest don’t come across well, leaving the audience as passive observers.

When there is action, Greengrass and his team employ a frenetic style that is not great for comprehension. While the gist of what is happening and what side is winning is legible, individual moments go by so quickly so as to be nearly meaningless. Save for Ploughman, any connection that has been made with various characters proves futile, as Greengrass doesn’t seem to have any time for emotion. Scenes that should feel thrilling or heartbreaking instead come off as empty.

Garfield is a two-time Oscar nominee who has done great work across multiple genres. He’s fine in this role, but whether it’s the story, the filmmaking, or something else, he’s not as captivating as usual. The same goes for other strong actors like Bell, McKenzie, Dillane, Hollander, and Waterston, who each seem to be giving their all to their performances but are somehow muted in the process.

Done right, The Uprising could have been a rip-roaring account of people standing up against their oppressors. What Greengrass has made, though, is a film that can’t translate its medieval story for a modern audience and concentrates too much on unexciting elements and too little on thrilling ones.

---

The Uprising is now playing in theaters.

movies film reviews

Loading...