Horrible Histories: The Movie – Rotten Romans Review

The Horrible Histories series has been many things over the course of its existence. I remember it best as a series of books, that helped millions of young people around my age foster an interest in history, I used to love the books as a kid. Unlike the dry and lifeless history books at school, these injected humour and an underlying naughtiness to make it seem all that more appealing to an 8-year-old mind.

There was also a highly successful TV adaptation that unfortunately came just after my time to watch such programs, so it completely passed me by, but it is highly regarded by those who remember it, in particular its range of quirky songs and presentation of historical events.

Now the series has been transplanted onto the big screen, a natural next step for the series perhaps, if not a bit late, given the length of time since the TV series ended, but not an unwelcome one by any means, they can usually depended on for a few laughs, right?

Story

It is the time of Emporer Nero’s rule over the Roman Empire. An uprising in Britain led by the Celtic Queen Boudicca threatens to destroy the empire as it is known. Meanwhile, a young Celt tries to prove herself as a warrior.

Verdict

Horrible Histories has been many things in the past; it has been crass, gory, and not a little inaccurate from time to time, but this film is the first time it has managed to be dull.

Granted, I’m not the target demographic for this film, but as someone who grew up with the books, I half-expected there to be something for all to enjoy, the spark of creativity that made the series what it was in the first place. Instead, all we got is a barrage of shallow, uninteresting characters spouting cliche dialogue, it’s an endless torrent of toilet humour to go with it.

I get that the series has a penchant for the crude, it’s what made the series seem so taboo to kids, but the constant reaching for the low hanging fruit of fart jokes and other assorted bodily functions, seems like it should be far below the property.

There’s nothing in this film that reminds me of what the series once was, there’s a few background jokes that raise a Twitter, but that’s all they are, a background, something on-screen for mere seconds before we’re whizzed off to watch more uninteresting dialogue spoken by one-dimensional character that no-one can even pretend to care about. It grapples with its own identity but rather than finding its own niche, it’s merely content to remain on the bottom-rung, constantly going back to the same tired jokes.

The real shame here is the potential this film had to follow in its predecessors footsteps and create a film that could make children interested in the historical elements, but it ineptly fails at even that, taking a series built on its education value to children and making it into lowest-common-denominator claptrap that most executives think is all children want.

There’s no life here, no spark, no intelligence. Even the token songs seem exactly that: token. The energy has been sapped away and replaced by a placeholder of a film, so blandly put-together and uninteresting that your children would genuinely be better off with The Boss Baby, as much as that hurts to say.

The Horrible Histories series was a beacon of light in its time; a gateway for so many towards the wonderfully varied world of history, and I’m sad to say that absolutely none of that light translates to this big-screen train wreck. A waste of time so epic that Nero himself would be impressed, it would leave even the most jaded cynic asking: ‘what have the Romans’ ever done for us’.

At best it’s merely forgetful, at worst it’s the trashing of a legacy not seen since the fall of the actual Roman Empire. Cynical, designed-by-committee nonsense, dished up to children who, frankly, deserve much better. There is absolutely no saving this pile of elephant droppings, not even it’s talented cast, who also deserve better. It’s safe to say missing this one won’t haunt you until your dying day, and just goes to prove that some history is best left in the past.

Advertisements

A Critical Assessment of the Disney Remakes

I’ve had a lot to say in the past about Disney’s recent crop of ‘live-action’ remakes of old, animated classics. But since they’ve all been within the context of a review, I haven’t had a chance to express my full thoughts of the whole thing.

I think critical analysis is important when it comes to assessing films. It is all very well and good to take one particular stance and arguing your position, but I find it much better to sit on the fence and argue both sides.

Like a lot of things, the thought processes behind such things is complex and shouldn’t be viewed as black-and-white or right-or-wrong, very few things should, and I fully accept that there are many people out there who are more than happy to sit through as many remakes as Disney can offer, just as much as there are highly vocal detractors, but as is usually the case, the negative voice is the loudest.

Thinking cynically to start off, it is very easy to see why Disney are remaking their old properties; it’s in pursuit of the Almighty Dollar. Nostalgia is a highly bankable thing, every year it seems we are treated to a remake, or re-imagining, or re-boot of some old property with market value, to get as many people through the door on opening weekend as possible.

To expand on this in Disney’s case; the last few remakes could be viewed very cynically indeed. The last two films released as of the writing of this is The Lion King and Aladdin, and I put it to you that this release schedule was more a marketing exercise than an artistic one.

Thinking about it, all of the people who grew up on these films are now adults, at the perfect age at which they’ll start producing children of their own, so why not create two generations of Lion King fans? Bringing the new generation on board whilst also exploiting the pockets of those who have cherished childhood memories of the originals.

This idea could, of course, backfire. Say the film doesn’t live up to the expectations set in some people’s minds, this might, in theory turn them against any future remakes. But in practice it doesn’t particularly matter, especially to the studio, what you think of the film AFTER seeing it, they already have your money, and there are enough different people with different nostalgia circles to be fulfilled.

Perhaps if you aren’t a Renaissance Disney fan, maybe you’re a ‘Golden Age’ fan for instance? Well, Disney have you covered there too, not only was The Jungle Book a runaway success a few years ago, but a new version of The Lady and The Tramp is set to release later this year… on Disney’s new streaming service, meaning that those who have a want for that will subscribe to Disney’s service, and the circle of nostalgia begins anew.

The tide of public opinion is a very fickle thing, as the old saying goes: ‘one day you’re the cock of the walk, the next you’re a feather duster’ and the casual cinema-going audience is even more fickle, they’re the crowd who want the recognisable names, the bigger the better, so in that respect Disney are guaranteed a good return, nothing is a risk when you’re studio is that big.

Well, since Disney’s remakes are down currently in the court of public opinion, you would expect the box office numbers to be down right? Again, it’s not so cut and dry.

If we take the start point of this trend to be 2015’s Cinderella, a live-action remake of the classic 1950 animation, within five years the box office numbers have almost doubled for these remakes. Cinderella took home a respectable $534,551,353 worldwide, whereas 2019’s Aladdin is sitting on a dragons horde of $988,840,714 worldwide. This is before we even mention The Lion King which has already made a worldwide return of $531,000,000.

So, we know the numbers aren’t declining, if anything it’s the opposite, but what of artistic output? Well, as we know artistic integrity means as much in modern-day Hollywood as a fish does to a hungry shark, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t creatives left in Hollywood, and a lot of them are involved in these project, they must be creative in some way, otherwise they wouldn’t be the cinematic equivalent of crack cocaine.

Remaking an old property is not an inherently bad thing, but I do think there should be a more clearly-defined line of what constitutes old enough to warrant such a change. The Lion King, Aladdin, and to a less extent, Beauty and the Beast did not need much changing, if anything changing them has done more harm than good.

The essence of a good remake is in what it can improve, what it can fix that either didn’t work, or are very uncomfortable viewing in hindsight. Disney has a closet full of skeletons of past decisions, which may have flown at the time, but which are simply unacceptable now. (Footnote: it’s worth pointing out that Disney is very much not the only company guilty of this)

While it is possible to re-release the original films with the offending scenes cut out, I don’t think this is the wisest decision. By erasing the errors of our past, those errors become easily forgotten, and more likely to be duplicated, which is why we should never stop teaching people about the evils of the Nazi regime, and while this is on a completely different scale, the same principle applies, we learn no lessons from the past by ignoring it.

That isn’t to say the eventual remake might not change these things in the future, that is a completely different kettle of fish, that would show growth and an admittance of fault. Which is why I think it’s a great idea for Disney to re-visit some old titles, but I emphasise the OLD part of that sentence.

Wonderful things can be achieved by looking to past properties and seeing how they could be improved, but it also provides a free pass for some of the decision-makers in Hollywood make a quick buck on the name of some of their old intellectual property. As I said earlier in this piece, a remake is not automatically bad, but a remake that does nothing different and retains the status quo? That’s when I have an issue.

I have an issue with this because it’s subconsciously trying to re-write history in its favour, by making a new version of something old, we are being discreetly told to forget the old version, but this doesn’t work when the older version is superior, and still widely available. I’ll probably never watch the live-action Aladdin again, but I’ll see the animated one again in a heartbeat, and I think that’s the most damning thing.

The reason this is damning is because I realise that the original was made with heart, and love, painstakingly drawn and animated, yes it was also there to make money, but not as cynically as 2019’s Aladdin, which had none of the life and heart, but did have terrible CGI and wooden acting.

My advice when it comes to these films is the same as the advice I give about most films, judge it after you see it. Jumping to unnecessary conclusions before you’ve even laid eyes on the final product is silly. Yes, I said some nasty things about Aladdin, but that was because I’d seen it and came to those conclusions, and that’s what I suggest to anyone; employ critical thinking, and if you enjoy the final result, that’s all that matters.

Box Office figures were taken from the-numbers.com and are correct as of 22/07/19.

The Lion King Review

I may have said this before, but in my opinion the high-point of the Disney ‘live-action’ remakes has so far been The Jungle Book. It updated and refreshed a film that was long enough ago to warrant a fresh coat of paint with a stellar cast and a lovely new visual style.

So, when the man who helmed that film (Jon Favreau, who also brought Iron Man to the screen for the first time) was signed up for a remake of the modern masterpiece that is The Lion King, it’s fair to say I was excited, and as time went by, and casting was announced, it only seemed to get stronger.

Now, I don’t mean to be the one to rain on any parades (oh, who am I kidding?) but despite all the marketing in the world, this version of The Lion King is absolutely, positively, one-hundred percent NOT ‘live-action’. It is just as animated as the original, if not more so. CGI after all, is just another form of animation no matter how close we get to the uncanny valley of absolute realism.

After all this, will we get a worthy successor to the 1994 original?

Story

Simba, the Son of the great King Mufasa, must learn what it is to be a king, all the while fighting his inner conflicts, and his treacherous uncle Scar, to become the rightful King of Pride Rock.

Verdict

I was considering not even including a synopsis of the story, after all, who doesn’t know the story of The Lion King? It’s only a cultural touchstone and held-up as a beacon of great animation, surely not much more can be added to it?

In truth The Lion King is one of the most difficult films to review; it is still by-and-large the same Lion King that we loved twenty-five years ago, so it must still be great right? Well, almost, but not quite.

I could fill a full review parroting the same points about the need for all these remakes when the originals are still readily available and are just as good as they ever were, but as much as I’m REALLY trying to steer clear of that as much as I can, it can’t really be ignored when the films are so similar.

Well, maybe that’s a bit harsh, the broad strokes are the same, right down to replicating certain shots from the original, which I’m not sure I like, surely the point of a remake is to take the old story and give it extra polish, fixing the things that didn’t work before, but in this case, there wasn’t really all that much to fix.

As much as it can be written off as another cynical Disney cash-grab, there are some really nice moments in The Lion King, especially in the visuals, but something is taken away from a moment when it’s something the audience has seen before and know is coming, Mufasa’s death springs to mind (I know I try and avoid spoilers, but you’ve had twenty-five years to see the original).

Sure, the moment was effective and well animated and acted, but it’s hard to praise it too much when it’s practically tracing the scene verbatim from the original.

There are times when the film feels like a shot-for-shot remake, but it’s when it embraces its own charms when it truly flourishes. I mentioned the visuals before, and true they are staggeringly beautiful, the settings and creatures all look real enough to touch, even if the characters linger by the uncanny valley at times (which I think is inevitable when you animate a photo-realistic animal to talk) they’re all incredibly well-realised and this alone helps build a nice atmosphere around the world.

The voice cast is also stellar, with the great James Earl-Jones reprising his role as Mufasa, they really couldn’t have replaced his soothing, yet authoritative tones, even with his advancing age his voice is as smooth as velvet. Chiwetel Ejifor absolutely kills it as Scar (ironically) his voice dripping with menace from the moment he first appears. It just goes to show what a mine-field this must have been to cast, they couldn’t bring themselves to replace James Earl-Jones, but there’s a lot to be said also for the performances of a lot of the original cast; Jeremy Irons was, of course, fantastic, and then there’s the pairing of Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella.

Which brings me nicely onto Timon and Pumbaa, who are responsible for some of my favourite moments in the original. Their portrayal in this new style is a rather jarring one, but they still offer great moments of levity in the film, I particularly liked Billy Eichner who voiced Timon, but overall I think both him and Seth Rogan brought enough of themselves to the part to make it their own.

In conclusion then, it really depends on your own tolerance of the modern-day Disney remakes as to what you’ll make of The Lion King. Personally, as a fan of the original, I enjoyed seeing it once again in a different style, and all the effective moments are still very effective, but I’m not so keen on it as a critic, who sees this route to be a creative dead-end for the film industry. Jon Favreau and his cast did their best to make a film to live up to the original, and in some ways they succeeded, but I still feel the effort was mis-placed when there wasn’t that much to add to begin with.

A good remake, or re-imagining, should use some of the originals ideas and jump of with some of their own, simply remaking films we already know to be good almost beat-for-beat gets us nowhere, apart from walking round in circles, I’m not opposed to the idea of remaking old properties, I just ask that there be a reason for it, and simply put, there is no reason to remake The Lion King, no matter the eventual merits.

Stuber Review

The summer blockbuster release slate is often varied. You can expect a few by-the-numbers action flicks (soon to be served up by the Fast and Furious franchise) and more often than not you’ll get a mainstream buddy comedy led by a few a-listers, or up and comers, this year this is brought to us by this film.

Dave Bautista leads the cast as it’s star. A very unexpected breakout star over the last few years, as the number of ex-wrestlers who’ve made a successful film career can be counted on one hand, the two stand-outs are Dave, and Dwayne Johnson, and at least Bautista does different things from time to time.

It’s not a particularly high-concept film, the unlikely duo buddy comedy is as well-worn a trope as any, especially in the department of ‘big-guy cop, and small-guy partner’ its setup is anything but fresh, but what’s it like in execution?

Story

Ric Manning (Dave Bautista) is a veteran cop who loses his partner while chasing a drug dealer, causing him to obsess over the case, while fighting his own failing sight. He is taken off the case but soon commandeers an Über, driven by Stu (Kumail Nanjiani) and jumps back on the case.

Verdict

As a film, Stuber is somewhat of a mess. Cobbled together from aspects of other films and held together by cliches. It redeems itself somewhat in the performance department, however, as the Buddy comedy lives and dies on its central duo’s chemistry, Bautista and Nanjiani are a very watchable pair, who seemingly force joy into the film at every opportunity, even if the film runs out of steam in the end.

There’s very little wit and subtlety about the film as a whole, not that we expected much subtlety, but the failing eyesight angle is an unexpected, yet underused aspect of the character, it is used fleetingly when the film remembers that it needs to make it seem like he’s under threat, but takes a back seat through most of the run time.

A comedy film lives and dies on the amount of laughs that can be derived from it, and it does fairly well, helped by the performances of its leading duo, Bautista has immaculate comedic timing, as seen in the MCU, and Nanjiani gets a few funny one-liners. The main problem is it all seems so inconsequential as a film.

Sure, nobody expected this film to be groundbreaking, but there are times when it feels like it’s not even really trying. The action sequences are lazy and unimaginative, the side characters are paper-thin, and the token twist is completely nonsensical in delivery.

In conclusion then, aside from a dynamite leading duo, this film has very little to offer apart from that besides a few throwaway laughs. It isn’t an experience that will stick with you, at best it’s merely forgettable, at worst it’s insufferably flat film that’s overly pleased with itself, regardless of its laziness, and overall lack of imagination.

Thunder Road Review

Another day, another film named after a Bruce Springsteen song…

Apart from sharing that aspect, there are very few things that link the last film I reviewed (Blinded by the Light) and this film, so there won’t be much comparison drawn in that department.

This film started life as a fifteen-minute short film of the same name, written and directed by Jim Cummings, who also stars, he reprises those roles in this feature-length effort, which still isn’t an epic by run-time standards, but being short means that it doesn’t have any space wasted, and has pillar from which to build of its early iteration, which is cleverly worked back into this film.

Story

Jim Arnaud (Cummings) is a man whose life is falling apart. He’s just buried his mother, and his wife is divorcing him, sending his metal state into a nose-dive.

Verdict

It’s an intriguing little film, this.

The summary I gave there is shorter than usual, but that isn’t because of my lack of understanding, it’s merely because if I said anymore I’d risk giving away a lot of the plots major points, and it really is a film that’s fascinating to merely watch unfold, as well as having interesting characters and plot developments.

Mainly, this film is a vehicle for its star/director, and Cummings delivers a towering and affecting performance, and establishes himself as a modern master of the cinematic monologue, the film is punctuated by numerous long-take, rambling monologues delivered emotionally and believably by Cummings, all that is great in the film revolves around him.

Unfortunately, that means that less time is afforded to fleshing out any other character, thus making them seem very shallow, but for a plot that revolves mainly around Cummings’ character, this is not too much of a fault.

As far as I can tell, this is Cummings’ feature-length debut as a director (his IMDb lists a few other short films, but no features) and he shows flashes of brilliance throughout the film. The aforementioned monologues are among the highlights from a directing stand-point as well as from a performance perspective.

It’s an enormous task to direct yourself to a performance like Cummings gave, and he has my admiration for this. The story might not seem like anything new, but it’s in the execution that Thunder Road stands out, it’s independent origins are worn on its sleeve, with no big stars connected and next to no fanfare, it’s a deep cut of a film that only the most determined film fan would know about, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth talking about far from it.

It has a lot to offer that many bigger films don’t. It sounds pretentious to wax lyrical about the merits of independent film-making, but this is a great example of a film that makes the most of what it has, not a moment of it is wasted.

The script is another area where the film excels, its slick dialogue is almost Tarantino-esque in its delivery and writing, effortlessly flicking between emotional breakdown and hilarious one-line asides, all without feeling over-written, it shows the range of Cummings’ talent.

It’s also incredibly surprising in how quickly it turns from comedy to drama, such a change can derail a films narrative if not handled correctly, and Thunder Road suddenly takes a sharp left that it had been building too over its ninety minute run-time, subtly building the anxiety behind Jim, and pays off in one bittersweet, uncomfortable ending which will really stick with you.

In conclusion, a towering performance from its central character, paired with focused direction and a really sharp, frankly outstanding script makes Thunder Road one of this years most unexpected triumphs.

Blinded By the Light Review

I’ve never really listened to Bruce Springsteen. His music reminds me of the kind of chest-beating, over-patriotic Americana that really grinds on my nerves. But after watching this and hearing more of his songs than I’d previously heard, I realise that I may have presumed too much about Mr Springsteen.

This is a film from Gurinder Chadha, the director behind Bend it Like Beckham, the 2002 film about an Asian-British teenage outsider exploring a world in which their family disapproves of. Conversely, Blinded by the Light is a film about an Asian-British teenage outsider exploring a world which their parents disapprove of.

Although that may be mostly sarcasm in my lovably facetious way, there are several similarities to be drawn between the filmmaker’s previous output and his latest effort. Not that this is automatically a bad thing, every filmmaker has a voice, and if Chadha is giving a voice to the Asian-British community, then more power to her, but does this celebration as Springsteen connect well with her themes of Asian identity?

Story

Javed (Viveik Kalra) is a 16-year-old Pakistani-British boy living in the tail-end of Thatcher’s Britain, a time of great Social and Economic upheaval, contending with the rise of the ultra far-right National Front, and the prospect of a life of unemployment, he dreams of escaping for a better life as a writer, and discovering the music of a certain American singer, opens his eyes to new forms of expression.

Verdict

If we are forced to seriously draw comparisons between this film and Bend it Like Beckham, then we have several similarities in which we can start, and be very justified in drawing attention to this, however, for all its similarities, Blinded by the Light manages to break away from the shadow left by BILB and forge its own identity in doing so.

At a glance, Springsteen might seem like an odd choice to base a story ostensibly about Pakistani-British life around, the film finds clever ways of making his words apply to the situations Javed finds himself in, making use of visually showing the words on screen to drive home the point that what Bruce is singing about is what Javed is thinking, while this could have seemed invasive, it is used just enough to establish a point, without being overly relied on in a way that seems like an exposition dump.

There’s a fine line to walk between representation and stereotype, one that becomes narrower the more you focus on one specific identity, of course, when it is handled by someone of a the same, or similar, race the blow is softened somewhat and we allow for more wiggle room than if a white person were to be directing the film. The plot thread of over-bearing ethnic parents was also explored in BILB, and I’d say is pushed even further here, almost to the point where Javed’s father becomes unlikable, where the aim seemed to be to make him sympathetic.

Character-wise, the film is an exploration of Britain at that time, some characters gain depth as the story progresses, others remain slightly one-dimensional, for instance, time is given to flesh out Javed’s sister into a more complex character, while his best friend, Matt, remains a stereotype of the fashion-chasers who inhabited the late-80’s. In the films defence, it did have a lot of characters to juggle, but it could be argued that if that’s the case, then maybe not all of the characters should have made the final cut.

On the story front, it takes a while to properly get going, and the first 45 minutes were almost entirely disposable, and while I’ve never bought ‘it gets better later’ as a valid excuse for a film, it does eventually pick up towards the end of the film, its final act in particular executes its story ideas very nicely, and the final ten minutes left me with a big smile on my face.

There can also be comparisons drawn with another recent release, Yesterday (review here: Yesterday Review) in that the story heavily features the songs of one particular artist without ever being about them, and Blinded tackles a lot more heftier issues than Yesterday does, and ultimately left me more satisfied. I enjoyed the few musical set-pieces and sympathised with its lead characters. It can be clunky and at times wasteful, but there’s a big heart lying underneath all of that, one that shines through in the final act.

In conclusion, this is a hard film to summarise, as I say by the end I left with a smile on my face, but I wouldn’t blame anyone for losing interest about an hour in, such is the time it takes the plot to finally get going, but for what its worth, when it does get going it has a lot to offer, a film with a big heart, and important messages of identity and belonging is in here, and sometimes shines through, but it is brought down by its sluggish first act and some shallow characters.

Spider-Man: Far From Home Review

The next film after Endgame was always going to have a mountain to climb wasn’t it?

I can’t help being reminded of last years release of Ant-Man and the Wasp, having the enormous job of both having to follow Infinity War, and being largely inconsequential to the franchise at large, apart from slotting in the reason why Ant-Man wasn’t in Infinity War.

I feel like the task is somewhat larger for Spider-Man however, Endgame was somehow more amorphous than Infinity War was, and seemed like a perfect time to close the Third Phase of the MCU, instead this film is the closing chapter of that Phase, seems strange at first glance, but starts to make sense as the film unfolds.

This film also has the distinction of being the first live-action appearance of classic Spider-Man villain Mysterio, portrayed here by Jake Hyllenhaal, fans have long wondered what a film version of the character would be like, and now we know, so let’s take a look at the new Spider-Man.

Story

Following the events of Avengers: Endgame, Peter Parker (Tom Holland) is taking a well-deserved vacation with his school friends. Unfortunately, fate, and Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson), have other plans and his vacation soon turns into a fight against the very elements of the Earth.

Verdict

I thought going in that this might be more like Ant-Man than it seemed at first glance. In that it had to follow the large event film, and was just filler to occupy space until the next big release, but it turns out I was wrong.

Far From Home is surprisingly layered for a film in its position, it would have been easy to make a by-the-numbers superhero film as a palate-cleanser between Phases, instead this is a fairly substantial entry in the series as a whole, more so as the intrigue of the main narrative unfolds.

It is a film that is trying to spin many plates at once, some more successfully than others, admittedly, there’s the MJ aspect of the plot, wherein Peter devises an overly-complicated plan to tell her about his feelings, and this is drawn-out and predictable, however, it is carried well by all parties involved, Tom Holland was his usual excellent self, and I find that the more I see of Zendaya, the more I like her. Her character in this is very against the grain for a typical love-interest and works well with Peter’s character.

There are also some clunky scene’s involving the teachers of the class who are supposed to be chaperoning the trip that I could have done without. A few exchanges raise a few chuckles, but by-and-large they don’t really have a lot to offer the plot.

Speaking of the plot, it gains a lot more depth as it goes on, and has surprisingly far-reaching consequences in the universe as a whole. It takes aspects dating back all the way to 2008’s Iron Man, the very beginning of the franchise. While the eventual reveals in its plots might seem contrived to a casual onlooker, there are a few rewards for the long-term viewer.

Like many MCU films, this is a very solid film, and a very strong entrant into the over-arching narrative as a whole, it certainly more than serves its purpose in moving the series on from Endgame, all the while adding to the events of the previous two Avengers films, by addressing some potential plot holes early on it establishes a firm timeline.

The performances are also strong all around, Tom Holland remains to me the best on-screen iteration of Spider-Man, and his assorted friends are all charming in their own ways. Jake Gyllenhaal also adds some colour to the films cheeks in his performance as Mysterio, adding layers of intrigue to the character, long-time fans will get a very satisfying pay-off to his inclusion, I feel.

In conclusion then, this film is a visual treat that has more than enough narrative weight to justify its existence, that gets over its early clunkiness quickly and ends up being a welcome addition to the franchise as a whole, with enjoyable performances and a rousing score, Far From Home is another triumph for Marvel Studios.