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

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.