Skip to main content

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
(2018)

(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.


The multiverse premise is a simple but effective means – in that it's by now a broadly familiar shorthand – for screenwriters Lord and Rodney Rothman (the latter one of three directors along with Bob Persichetti and Peter Ramsey) to team up various Spider-Man alts that have appeared over the years, albeit they're drawing on an already complex and stuffed-to-the-gills comic-book Spider-Verse. Probably the least persuasive onscreen is SP//dr alias Peni Parker’s anime-styled incarnation via a biomech suit, first featured in 2014 and here voiced by Kimiko Glenn. 


Peter Porker/Spider-Ham (voiced by John Mulaney) is the most absurd, a porcine "cartoon" – the word used as an insult – version of the character (first appearance 1983) who even gets away with overtly quoting the Warner Bros Looney Tunes his design references.


Perhaps most intriguing is Spider-Man Noir, voiced by Nicolas Cage (first appearance 2009), a black-and-white 1930s iteration who cutely, due to his monochromatic vision, becomes obsessed with a Rubik's Cube. They're on the periphery of the action, though (we also encounter Oscar Isaac's Miguel O’Hara/Spider-Man 2099 in the post-credits scene, wackily interacting with a rudimentary 1967 Spider-Man cartoon, with original voice Paul Soles). 


Centre frame, though, is Miles Morales (Shameik Moore), passed the Spidey baton when his universe's Peter Parker (Chris Pine) is killed by Wilson Fisk/Kingpin (Liev Schreiber); this Peter isn't in the movie very much, but there's an appealing reverence towards the previous Sony movies via a montage of near-quoted sequences applied to his reality (Sony's own pre-existing filmic Spider-Verse). Indeed, a perhaps inevitable consequence of the preponderance of other Spideys, most particularly Jake Johnson's middle-aged, beer-gut wielding, pizza-fuelled Parker, is that Miles isn't given a proper chance to assume the web-slinging mantle – amid much, possibly slightly overdone inability to even climb walls/stop sicking to things – until the climax. 


The flip-side, however, is very much a positive, in that the relationship between past-it Peter, less than dedicated to upholding his great responsibility following the failure of his marriage to Mary Jane Watson, really bears fruit, each gaining from his interaction with the other. 


Then there’s Spider-Gwen (Stacey, voiced by Hailee Steinfeld), who also first appeared in 2014, possibly the most stylish rendering of the various webslingers, although a distant third to Miles and fat Peter in prominence by virtue of lacking a crucial tie to Miles beyond his adoration (appropriately, ingenue Miles has to admit they're just friends). 


The villains might be considered less than essential in all this, incidental to the pervading Spider love-in, and to an extent, that's the case. But Kingpin's at least serviced with a relatable emotional motive for tearing the worlds asunder (to regain his lost love). He isn't just bent on destruction. 


There isn't much to Doctor Olivia Octavius Octopus aside from gender-swapping, however, meaning that the real kernel of conflict comes from Peter's discovery that his uncle Aaron (Mahershala Ali) is the Prowler (I might not have followed this thread completely, but I'm assuming the genetically-modified spider in the subway station must have come via Aaron's contact with Octavius or more tenuously Oscorp).


Most commendable about all this is that, even though Into the Spider-Verse is ostensibly a staple-gunned plot of various villains and Spideys, it makes remarkable cohesive, engrossing viewing purely on a narrative level. The emotional beats for Miles, from comedic dorkiness to familial tensions to rising to the challenge, all land effortlessly. There's a remarkable deftness throughout in juggling the comedy – and downright daftness at times – with the seriousness of the action and the characters' emotional arcs (as noted, even Kingpin is afforded heft). 


As for the animation, it's vibrant and invigorating in all the right ways. Perhaps occasionally, it becomes a little too abstract for its own good – the particle accelerator climax is a fully-seized opportunity for weightless comic-book leaping hither and thither, but there's a point where that's all it ends up being, detached from anything tangible and thus feeling more like the final act to your average overblown live-action superhero movie – but that's very much the rarity. 


The decision to remind us of comic frames through a limited four-colour palette and touches such as repeated (written on-screen) dialogue and sound effects evidences the most fun had in transposing the medium since Ang Lee's Hulk (although Into the Spider-Verse is receiving very much the positive reception for such affectations, where Hulk, at least at the time, was largely spurned). Rendering-wise, I'd only really take issue with the Stan Lee cameo, as he ends up looking rather flintier than I'm sure was intended. 


I suppose one might see Miles Morales (first appearance 2011, lest I forget) being consigned to an animated debut as a snub to the character, certainly given the way that, however well this ends up doing, the grosses will only be a fraction of Sony's main player. On the other hand, much as I loved Spider-Man: Homecoming, this version is undoubtedly the more inventive, creative piece, showing clearly that Sony doesn't need the Kevin Feige magic touch to make their comic-book character crown jewel, the one they’ll never let go off, a success. Just attract people with a passion for the character who know what they’re doing. Hopefully Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse will garner a sequel sooner rather than later. 

Oh, and Spidey Bells? Instant classic.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

  1. Nice article, Which you have shared here about the Spider-Man movie. Your article is very interesting and I liked your way to share this article here. If anyone looking for the Comic Movie News online, Visit movienewsnet.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice article. The new spider man movies are certainly building spider man's character up according to the real comics. Spiderman: Far from home's trailer has left us all hanging for it.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

If a rat were to walk in here right now as I'm talking, would you treat it to a saucer of your delicious milk?

Inglourious Basterds (2009)
(SPOILERS) His staunchest fans would doubtless claim Tarantino has never taken a wrong step, but for me, his post-Pulp Fiction output had been either not quite as satisfying (Jackie Brown), empty spectacle (the Kill Bills) or wretched (Death Proof). It wasn’t until Inglourious Basterds that he recovered his mojo, revelling in an alternate World War II where Adolf didn’t just lose but also got machine gunned to death in a movie theatre showing a warmly received Goebbels-produced propaganda film. It may not be his masterpiece – as Aldo Raines refers to the swastika engraved on “Jew hunter” Hans Landa’s forehead, and as Tarantino actually saw the potential of his script – but it’s brimming with ideas and energy.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994)
(SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump. And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

Hey, everybody. The bellboy's here.

Four Rooms (1995)
(SPOILERS) I had an idea that I’d only seen part of Four Rooms previously, and having now definitively watched the entire thing, I can see where that notion sprang from. It’s a picture that actively encourages you to think it never existed. Much of it isn’t even actively terrible – although, at the same time, it couldn’t be labelled remotely good– but it’s so utterly lethargic, so lacking in the energy, enthusiasm and inventiveness that characterises these filmmakers at their best – and yes, I’m including Rodriguez, although it’s a very limited corner for him – that it’s very easy to banish the entire misbegotten enterprise from your mind.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

I am forever driven on this quest.

Ad Astra (2019)
(SPOILERS) Would Apocalypse Now have finished up as a classic if Captain Willard had been ordered on a mission to exterminate his mad dad with extreme prejudice, rather than a mysterious and off-reservation colonel? Ad Astra features many stunning elements. It’s an undeniably classy piece of filmmaking from James Gray, who establishes his tone from the get-go and keeps it consistent, even through various showy set pieces. But the decision to give its lead character an existential crisis entirely revolving around his absent father is its reductive, fatal flaw, ultimately deflating much of the air from Gray’s space balloon.

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

The adversary oft comes in the shape of a he-goat.

The Witch (2015)
(SPOILERS) I’m not the biggest of horror buffs, so Stephen King commenting that The Witchscared the hell out of me” might have given me pause for what was in store. Fortunately, he’s the same author extraordinaire who referred to Crimson Peak as “just fucking terrifying” (it isn’t). That, and that general reactions to Robert Eggers’ film have fluctuated across the scale, from the King-type response on one end of the spectrum to accounts of unrelieved boredom on the other. The latter response may also contextualise the former, depending on just what King is referring to, because what’s scary about The Witch isn’t, for the most part, scary in the classically understood horror sense. It’s scary in the way The Wicker Man is scary, existentially gnawing away at one through judicious martialling of atmosphere, setting and theme.


Indeed, this is far more impressive a work than Ben Wheatley’s Kill List, which had hitherto been compared to The Wicker Man, succeeding admirably …