Daniel Link’s review published on Letterboxd:
How did it take them 15 years to get Spider-Man right on screen? I guess it was technically 14, what with the MCU Spidey showing up in Captain America: Civil War, but still, the Tobey Maguire version of the character never clicked with me, in large part because he seemed to old to play Parker from the beginning, and while Andrew Garfield got closer to the mark, his movies were bogged down by Sony's attempts to make them edgy and mysterious.
Tom Holland is the real deal, though. The little dude NAILS Spidey. He's the right age (or at least LOOKS the right age), has that naive but kind-hearted vibe about him, and the movie goes out of its way to show how Peter Parker is just an inexperienced kid in a world full of ridiculously high-powered demigods. Thinking it over, that's another reason why the Maguire and Garfield versions of the character didn't jive with me: their Spideys are the only superheroes in their respective universes, but Parker has always been the small-fry going as far back as his first comics appearance.
The supporting cast is excellent through and through, and the fact that so many characters are kind of bored of superheroes at this point just seems like something that would happen in real life (I still chuckle thinking of gym teacher Hannibal Buress dismissing Cap as a war criminal). AND THEY MADE VULTURE INTO A GREAT VILLAIN!!! If you're not in any way familiar with the character, historically he's been terrible, the "get off my lawn!" old man of comic book villains, but Michel Keaton brings a genuinely sinister charm to him). They also made Shocker--another weak villain--into a legacy character in a single movie. That's hilarious.
Great movie. I need to rewatch it soon.