Spider-Man: Far From Home Review

Spider-Man: Far from Home is the second Marvel film starring British actor Tom Holland and takes place after the events of Avengers: Endgame. Its still hard to believe the success of the Marvel films, especially after so many failed attempts at movies of marvel characters from before producer Kevin Feige helped put together this new cinematic universe starting with 2008’s Iron Man. The 1980s (and much of the 90s) was a time of quiet desperation for comic book fans wanting to see their favorite characters on the big screen. We had our first taste of what was to come with Tim Burton’s Batman in 1989. My 11 year old self would never believe that, years later, the cinemas would be inundated with comic book inspired movies. I would have been happy to see any comic book adaptation without complaint since they were so sparse. I remember standing in line to see Warren Beatty’s Dick Tracy. That’s not something I would do today. But back then, any comic book movie was a drop of water to a parched fan. My critical assessments of those few comic book movies were lenient since the gratitude for the simple existence of a comic book movie colored (or blunted) my honest appraisals. The Punisher (1989) with Dolph Lundgren might be an exception. One benefit of having so many comics films is that I don’t have to pull my punches. Also, I (like many others) am suffering from comic book movie fatigue. 11 year old me would shake his head in disgust at the previous sentence.

Peter Parker's defining feature is his struggle to find himself as a teenager in high school. His daily trials and ordinary troubles are what make the character so relatable. In Far from Home, Peter and his classmates are on a trip in Europe. Their first stop is Venice when a water monster just happens to attack the city that Spider-Man is visiting. At first it seems like this is just a coincidence (which would be silly) but later we discover it was deliberate ploy by Mysterio (played well by Jake Gyllanhall). Even though its explained later, I still found myself distracted by the seeming coincidence. Of all the cities in the world why would the water monster happen to choose the one Peter Parker is visiting? It’s needless contrivances like this that really annoy me about some of these films.

The main plot of Far from Home is what you would expect: bad guys, action, lots of CGI, and mega fight scenes. The trajectory of the story is obvious, especially if you know Mysterio from the comics. I was never a fan of the “hidden” villain device in films. I hated it in Batman Begins, Batman Rises, Iron Man 3, and so on. There are strong moments when Mysterio creates illusions to trick Peter (and the audience) at points in the film. And there are references to Orwell and notions of the malleability of truth – there is one scene when a character sarcastically says “the news never lies.” So there is an effort to be topical which could have been explored more with Mysterio but that opportunity is missed. There could have been some Inception type scenes where we go down a rabbit hole and explore the difference between reality and fantasy, truth and lies, etc. This could have been especially potent given the thematic concern of the Spider-Man films: dual identities, keeping secrets from loved ones, split loyalties (Peter’s selfish focus on his own life vs. selfless duty to others).

The high school/teenager subplot is much more engaging. In many ways Far from Home is a throw back to the films the 11 year old me would immediately recognize. I would have never guessed how much influence John Hughes would have over our cinematic language. Far from Home begins as a high school drama/comedy with nerdy Peter Parker pining over MJ who of course doesn’t return his crush. His painfully awkward pursuit is a trope that still works after all these years. His failed attempt to sit next to her on the plane is endearing. The tension with his romantic rival, Brad Davis, (played by Remy Hii) works because Brad is so much better looking that Peter. The comic relief is supplied by Peter’s friend, the rotund and nerdy Ned, (Jacob Batalon) who is older and looses some of the boyish charm he had in the first film. His very unbelievable relationship with the young and cutesy Betty (Angourie Rice) is meant to add comic relief but is cringey and adds nothing to the film.

Most of the comedic moments are kind of off-putting or forced. For example Ned is shot in the neck by Nick Fury (Samuel Jackson) with a tranquilizer when Fury miraculously appears in Peter’s Venice hotel bedroom so he could recruit him to fight the other monsters (there are always more). Peter was “ghosting” Fury by avoiding his phone calls. This was one of a few references to modern lingo, use of cell phones, and social media, which is supposed to make the movie hip? It was just too ubiquitous for me. Also, the weird relationship between Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau) and Aunt May (charmingly played by Marissa Tomei). Are they dating or not? Their flirtations are supposed to make Peter feel weird so its supposed to be funny. It’s just weird. No one cares about middle aged people dating. Not even middle aged people.

So the film relies on tropes and cliches, which I don’t mind. I don’t expect the writers to re-invent the wheel. Of course there are the clueless teachers, the cool kid, the outcasts (Peter and his friend) but, this is a modern movie, so it is very diverse and the archetypes are blunted (no one can be too mean, or cruel, or popular, or sexy, or dumb). MJ (Zendaya) is cool and witty but also smug and priggish. The modern trend of making teenagers capable and sophisticated in films is really something that needs to go away. Peter’s bully, Flash, does “bully” Peter it not as emotionally compelling as in the comics or other iterations of the characters. This Flash is played by Tony Revolori who comes off more as a spoiled snot as opposed to a dreamy jock – which is what Flash is supposed to be. I know that is a hackneyed trope but it works and its absence makes the hostility between Flash and Peter less potent.

I don’t know why the filmmakers decided to set the film in Europe. It seems arbitrary especially since New York city is central to the Spider-Man mythos. Also, Peter’s class went on a field trip to D.C. in the first movie so there is some redundancy here. That parts that work best are Peter finding his way towards embracing the new role bestowed upon him by Tony Stark (Iron Man from the other films). Peter’s struggle to reconcile his personal life with his duties as a hero have always been the most attractive aspect of the character. Especially because it helps the view into the fantasy. How would I handle this situation? Would I do good with this power? Would I be selfless? Spider-Man’s job is thankless in the comics and that part of his arc is missing in the film, but it looks like they are going to rectify that in the next film, since we are teased with that possibility in the post credits scene.

My 11 year old self would have reveled in this movie, and I know many 11 year olds will. These films are made for today’s 11 year olds while still anchored in the stories created over 50 years ago. I don’t envy filmmakers who have to reconcile those things to make a modern film. However, just because it’s a comic book movie doesn't mean I’ll be more forgiving. I’ve done that already, besides all I have to do is wait for the next one.