No thank you sir.
If you’ve read my previous posts, you can probably figure that I am a bit of a purist. However, I do like interpretations and spin-offs… at times.
My problem with this particular version is that they did not treat it like a spin off. The original Peter Parker is a teenager who becomes Spider-man after being bitten by a spider and develops unwarranted skills and powers.* In this film, they use the name Peter Parker, they name many of the original friends and family, they use his location, but this particular version of Peter Parker is really just a normal teenager who wants to be Spider-man in a world where Spider-man is already known and exists.
My opinion: if they would have given this kid a new name and a new situation, the rest of the story would have fallen in line. Peter Parker would have already come and gone, giving a name to Spider-man, and this new kid would be a “normal” teenager (not genetically mutated from a spider bite) who wants to be Spider-man. He would go on to make his own web-suit and attempt to work with Tony Stark as an Avenger. Great! Go for it. But why invalidate the original story to make way for a new character that cannot be relevant without the original? In this version, the idea of Spider-man already exists, yet Peter Parker is the one who “created” him. I am all about suspension of disbelief in storytelling, but this is something different and I just can’t get behind it.
Aside from my reservations with the story, visually the film is well done. However, in this day and age, there is no excuse for a high-budget film to not be well done. It was action packed, Robert Downey Jr. is as irresistible as ever, Michael Keaton plays a great villain, and Tom Holland (our new Spider-man) is actually quite adorable. There were some redeeming factors, but overall a bit of a botch if you ask me.
*With that, comes the “great power and great reasonability” blah blah blah, that Spider-man eventually comes to embrace.