Rate the latest movie you've seen.

[SGOS]

Spiderman: Homecoming 6/10
And the reason I scored it that high was fear of reprisal, although I admit that a 6 isn't much greater than 3.  In spite of the fact that Rotten Tomatoes gives it 94%, which causes me to wonder of the professional critics are too cowardly to not give it a "certified fresh" rating because its unthinkable to rate anything Marvel does less than 90%, especially in light of the fact that Homecoming partially reflects a homecoming of Spiderman back to the partial control of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and should therefore be better and truer to form, it just didn't interest me.  I had high expectations, which sometimes sets me up for disappointment that I may or may not exaggerate into failure.  Perhaps I can deflect some criticism with that explanation. 

I was bored and wanted to leave the theater, but I had only one empty seat on each side of me and then four other people in my row that I would have bothered by leaving.  And at my age, I didn't want to be the grumpy old fart that left because I bought a ticket by accident or simply no longer had the mental flexibility of youth to relate to the active and alert minds of he younger generation.  Indeed, some guy in the back of the theater would frequently give out one of those echoing belly laughs that dominated the audience, and he would do it when what just happened made no sense to me.  Oh well.

This is science fiction and Marvel should have the last say in how much license they have to mold their own characters, but it failed for me.  Spiderman has always been special, more like Thor with innate powers, rather than technological advancements like Iron Man and Peter Quill.  He gets his powers from the chemically or biologically altered DNA of a super spider, but now Peter Parker get's his powers from Tony Stark's computerized components found in the everyday Iron Man suit with a digitized heads up display that enhances his ability to see and hear.  He's like Iron man in a spandex, instead of a purely cosmetic outfit he doodled out during a math lecture.  He still shoots out web material, which I presume is still of organic nature, but it doesn't seem to go as far and his graceful trapeze skills aren't as grand or dramatic.

His foil isn't much of a super villain.  Michael Keaton is a junk dealer of alien left overs who mostly sends out his nameless goons to blast Spiderman with energy fields sending him smashing into buses and brick walls, but Keaton doesn't play a central role and isn't much better with his alien left overs than his goons.

I hope others love this movie.  I don't want this one to signal that Marvel might be losing its edge and it's days are numbered.  I don't want that to happen.  Marvel has been the best thing to come along to movies in my lifetime, and there is nothing in the wings to replace it.

[caseagainstfaith]

I confess I am not the toughest critic.  I like most movies I see.  I really, really, really LOVED SpiderMan Homecoming!  9.5/10.  I thought Keaton made a great villain.

[SGOS]

I confess I am not the toughest critic.  I like most movies I see.  I really, really, really LOVED SpiderMan Homecoming!  9.5/10.  I thought Keaton made a great villain.

I have no doubt that I'm going to be the odd man out on this one.

[caseagainstfaith]

I have no doubt that I'm going to be the odd man out on this one.

Your complaint about his suit is not unfounded.  In fact, the reason I preferred his shooters being organic, like in the Rami Spiderman films over them being mechanical as in the Webb movies was for the same reason.  Though they are mechanical in the comics.

[spoiler]
And, in fact, I was thinking that the next movie, the complaint about the suit will be more pronounced since he will have it full time next movie. If you recall, he had to do a lot without the special suit in this movie.[/spoiler]

[SGOS]

Your complaint about his suit is not unfounded.  In fact, the reason I preferred his shooters being organic, like in the Rami Spiderman films over them being mechanical as in the Webb movies was for the same reason.  Though they are mechanical in the comics.

I'm totally unfamiliar with the comics, so it's probably what you get used to.  What was the source of the mechanized suit in the comics?  Same as the movie?  And with that much high tech power available to him, how much of his organic spider power comes into play in the comics?  I don't want emphasize the suit issue that much.  It was just a minor issue that surprised me.

One thing I did think was funny in the movie was
[spoiler]Captain America continually showing up on classroom monitors with his motivational pep talks addressed to half interested students who were not all that captivated by his shtick.  I had the feeling the nation's public school system had adopted the captain as an ethical example to make good little citizens out of all the students, and as usual, it was just another waste of money dreamed up by the National Board of Education.  It seems like they must of had compulsory workshops for the teachers to learn how to use the Captain America resource.[/spoiler]

[Shiranu]

I thought it was pretty good, but not near Wonder Woman or Guardians level.

[Hydra009]

Spiderman: Homecoming 6/10

Ouch!

And the reason I scored it that high was fear of reprisal, although I admit that a 6 isn't much greater than 3.

That's not what the ladies say. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

In spite of the fact that Rotten Tomatoes gives it 94%, which causes me to wonder of the professional critics are too cowardly to not give it a "certified fresh" rating because its unthinkable to rate anything Marvel does less than 90%, especially in light of the fact that Homecoming partially reflects a homecoming of Spiderman back to the partial control of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and should therefore be better and truer to form, it just didn't interest me.  I had high expectations, which sometimes sets me up for disappointment that I may or may not exaggerate into failure.

Ouch.  Sounds like a mirror of my Logan experience.  With some of the TV comedies I watch, I can't tell if a joke has been told without the laugh track to remind me.  I sometimes worry that critics have become a sort of laugh track - trying to convince an audience to like a product rather than giving their honest appraisal of the film.

This is science fiction and Marvel should have the last say in how much license they have to mold their own characters, but it failed for me.  Spiderman has always been special, more like Thor with innate powers, rather than technological advancements like Iron Man and Peter Quill.

Technically, Spiderman donning power armor is canon in the comics.  So I dunno about license.

But you could make the case that there's too much going on with his powers - he already has a bunch of spider-derived powers (agility, strength, web-shooting, advance warning of imminent danger) so adding powered armor to the mix creates a too expansive powerset lacking a unifying theme.

I'm much more open to the latter argument than the former.

He still shoots out web material, which I presume is still of organic nature, but it doesn't seem to go as far and his graceful trapeze skills aren't as grand or dramatic.

That's actually a plus in my book.  I've always pictured him as fairly acrobatic, but there are limits to what he can successfully pull off.  Especially a young, inexperienced Spidey.  Sure, he can leap from tall buildings, somersalt over bad guys, and dodge most of what's coming at him - but zigging when he should have zagged often lands him in a world of hurt.  That's my impression, at least.

His foil isn't much of a super villain.

Yeah, I thought the Vulture would be a pretty lame villain.  He's pretty low on the Spiderman rogues' gallery compared to Venom, Carnage, Green Goblin/Hobgoblin, Doc Ock, Kingpin, Rhino, The Reptile, etc.  The Vulture probably wouldn't even crack the top 10.

[SGOS]

I sometimes worry that critics have become a sort of laugh track - trying to convince an audience to like a product rather than giving their honest appraisal of the film.

I wonder about that too.  Everyone is going to disagree with the critics, or in the case of Rotten Tomatoes, the average of the critics from time to time, but it's not just about critics having personal reactions to films.  It's about predicting audience reactions correctly too.  Otherwise, viewers will start to disregard you, and in the worst case, stop reading your column. 

What I do suspect happens is a kind of group think and semi-conscious desire to not stray too far from the pack for fear of being labeled as "wrong."  But then I might suspect that because it's exactly the feeling I had when I voiced my opinion about this movie, especially when the reviews were already in, and I already knew I was the contrarian.  Also, with Marvel's reputation and Box Office record of repeated success, I have a tendency to think every movie they put out has to be a phenomenal block buster, so why not add a point or two, just to be on the safe side?  I can't see why critics wouldn't be similarly influenced.  And with their careers and reputation on the line, it's easier to justify being wrong when everyone else is wrong.  It's safer to travel with the pack.

Another thing I think I notice critics doing is reviewing each film with the demographic in mind that will likely see the film, although I understand the actual merit in that.  Try to get it right for the demographic involved.  For example, horror films that are given ratings as high as the average Marvel film, even though they don't compare in creativity, production quality, plot, cinematography, or inspirational value, and I see what seems to be a lot of oddly high scores for horror films that don't even do that well financially at the box office.

[Baruch]

Commercialism is the death of culture.  Follow the money.  Good culture requires a plutocratic base who is competing over who is the most cool Don (see Italian Renaissance).

[Shiranu]

So hyped for Dunkirk.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So hyped for Dunkirk.

"Great movies are not won by retreats!"

[SGOS]

"Great movies are not won by retreats!"

Hopefully, this one will be authentic, because I'm said to say the only thing I know about the actual battle of Dunkirk is from what I've seen in this movie trailer.

[Shiranu]

Hopefully, this one will be authentic, because I'm said to say the only thing I know about the actual battle of Dunkirk is from what I've seen in this movie trailer.

I'm sure Nolan will take a fair bit of artistic license, but I also know he is one of the greatest directors alive atm, and made several desicions that are really confidence building; filming at Dunkirk despite the conditions not being easy to work in, casting almost all young, unheard of actors because the first-hand accounts he heard were all from people who were teenagers, demanding the cast be all English, not wanting a German soldier to be shown in the film because they were under siege rather than in combat, and keeping dialog to the minimum and letting the situation of the characters speak for itself and build tension for itself rather than trying to force you to like characters you don't know. That, and making the film triopic; showing the scenario from land, sea and air instead of just focusing on one section.

Then you have Hans Zimmer as the musical director...

And on that songs note; you get fucking Spitfires. A movie cant be bad if it has a Spitfire in it. It's just not scientifically possible.

[Baruch]

Dunkirk - fish in a barrel.  And the actual reason why the Germans stopped short ... they were led by an idiot.  Blitzkrieg was invented by someone other than Hitler, and happened as an accident due to the Wehrmacht not following Hitler's plan.  Hitler expected to be stopped by the French and the Maginot Line.  His local commanders simply took targets of opportunity and kept on going, and the Franco-British forces could never catch up.  Until Hitler finally regained control and had them stop.  Germany could have won the war at Dunkirk, but was defeated by Hitler, not by France nor Britain.  And a damn good thing it was that he did so.  For five days when Winston Churchill became PM .. his cabinet and himself had to decide if they were going to surrender to Germany (before Dunkirk).  That decision, opposed by half of Britain ... to not surrender, was even more crucial than Hitler's failure to finish the job ... but Hitler's failure enabled Britain to fight back.  France chose the opposite ... and betrayed their ally.  And got 4 years of brutal occupation.  I think it was because, in spite of WW I .. that the French hated the British even more than they hated the Germans.

[Baruch]

Hopefully, this one will be authentic, because I'm said to say the only thing I know about the actual battle of Dunkirk is from what I've seen in this movie trailer.

Seems authentic in a pro-British way.  Now with the Chunnel, Britain will have to surrender to Merkel occupation ;-(

From 1969 movie ... why it was crucial that the Royal Air Force not be over-committed to France ... which led to eventual air superiority of the Royal Air Force over the Channel (for Dunkirk evacuation) and over London ... after a stiff challenge by the Luftwaffe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVXOyklW4Ps

German success leads to German arrogance ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dUv5FcyNM0

Clearing up the mythology ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXYij5JxC-M