Skip to main content

Please do not start calling it my “Peter Tingle”.

Spider-Man: Far From Home
(2019)

(SPOILERS) I had a feeling the makers of Spider-Man: Far From Home weren’t making life easy for themselves when they picked Mysterio as – yes – the villain the piece, and the finished movie bears that out. Because Quentin Beck’s nature as an illusionist/ master manipulator, rather than an antagonist prone to getting into extended punch-ups with our hero, means there’s added onus on dexterous, surprising and slippery plotting, and screenwriters Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers only partially succeed in that regard. Which doesn’t mean Far From Home fails to deliver a series of standout sequences and twists, but as a whole it just isn’t as well sustained as its Spider-predecessor.

McKenna and Sommers – who have been on something of a big-screen roll over the last three years, with The Lego Batman Movie, Homecoming, Welcome to the Jungle and Ant-Man and the Wasp – only add to their hurdles by setting the movie around a school summer trip to Europe. Rather than an avalanche of bawdy incident – although, Peter Parker does get snapped with his trousers down – in the context of a superhero movie, this leads to a stop-start structure that has difficulty gaining momentum. Peter, previously eager to be an Avenger and do anything and everything superheroic, is now dragging his heels about the same, mooning over MJ (so this is equivalent, sort-of-not, to Spider-Man 2’s Spider-Man No More!). It works in context – because the teen stuff in these movies is so well honed – but it’s also a touch awkward, the kid formerly leaping at the chance not to be thought of as a teen now only wanting to be one.

These early scenes are full of great material, nevertheless. Much as Homecoming amusingly recapped (Spidey’s involvement in) Civil War, Far From Home addresses everything – well, most of the things – you considered might arise as a consequence of Endgame’s five-year lag for returning snapees, with all manner of amusing (Flash ratted for trying to buy drink on an airplane) and disturbed consequences (Mr Harrington’s wife pretended she’d been snapped so as to leave him). But you feel yourself waiting for the plot proper to kick in – there’s a teaser scene introducing Jake Gyllenhaal’s Quentin Beck/ Mysterio, and it’s just off enough to make you unsure about him even if you don’t know his history. If you do know his history, you’re left wondering how much the (as it turns out, fake-out) multiverse device may be retconning his character (but let’s face it, everyone who did presumed it would only be up to a point); as it turns out, every initial assumption is correct, that Beck is who he usually is, and his Elementals are just fancy holograms.

The problem with all of this is that you can feel yourself waiting for a reveal or twist for a good hour of the running time – not that the proceedings aren’t mostly amiable, enjoyable and diverting, because they are, but there’s no real internal tension, and if anything’s going to ultimately adversely affect Far From Home’s box office, it’s this. Peter doesn’t even get to be especially proactive or intuitive with regard to Beck’s machinations; he has to have a whacking great illusion shown to him as exactly that before he cottons on. And then we’re treated to what I have to assume is self-aware piece of exposition from Beck congratulating his team. Why? Because it goes on for so long. But it isn’t especially witty, so I don’t know how much that’s actually the case. Plus, it seems the set mould for Peter’s villains’ motivation is to be dictated by Stark’s mistreatment/legacy – “He renamed my life’s work BARF” – which is as poor a crutch as a pervasive OsCorp.

These events give the movie the pulse it desperately needs, though, putting Peter on track to sort things out rather than backing out, and emphasising that, rather than just being a trickster, Quentin is a sociopath willing to kill with impunity. There’s still the essential problem that Gyllenhaal just doesn’t make a very interesting villain here – sure, he can fake amenability with Peter, and he can adopt a slightly camp theatricality as his natural self, but he’s unable to find anything to really dig in to (perhaps we should just be grateful he didn’t play the part in the style of Okja). I think, despite how well, at times, his trickery works, Beck might be the most vanilla of all Spidey foes across the various movie iterations (well, perhaps not Dan DeHaan’s Green Goblin).

Indeed, I’d reached the conclusion that it was only the double guessing of whether he really was a genuine hero from Earth-833 that sustained Beck at all… until the point where director Jon Watts goes full-on hyper-surreal and Peter’s experiential world crashes down around him. There are a couple of rather glib allusions to fake news explaining why Beck’s trickery lands so successfully, since people will believe anything right now (and pointedly, MJ is a conspiracy theorist, but in the dismissible movie sense rather than relating to any actual conspiracies), except one’s left thinking why shouldn’tthey, given the preconception-challenging nature of the MCU? I’d also been slightly underwhelmed by the “all done with mirrors”, Now You See Me sleight of hand of Beck and his crew (when you start to analyse the details of the Elementals fantasy, how long would the deceit actually have held up?) But this bravura sequence actually manages to conjure something of an all-consuming assault on the senses, whereby having one’s reality entirely overwhelmed and controlled suddenly becomes horribly, paralysingly feasible. The way in which Peter plunges from illusion to illusion without pause to gather breath kind of makes me wish Watts was making the Doctor Strange movies (I find it odd hearing some diminish his abilities; he isn’t a stylist, in the sense of one who draws attention to their manipulation of the frame, but he might be the best the MCU currently has at getting the most from the material).

Part of the pre-release conversation regarding the illusionary element concerned whether Nick Fury might or might not be Nick Fury, and it seemed inevitable that, at some point, Quentin would assume his identity; I entirely didn’texpect the reveal that he was a Skrull (Ben Mendelsohn’s Talos) for the entire movie, while actual Nick takes some R’n’R. Funny as that is, it’s also slightly irritating, since it implies that Beck didn’t have to aim very high to pull the wool over various eyes (ie he really is a c-list villain, despite the magnificent goldfish bowl – oh, what we missed not having Bruce Campbell play him).

Far From Home plays a lot with the subject of Peter’s secret identity, from the blasé way Nick (Skrull Nick) makes it clear everyone in SHIELD knows who Spider-Man really is, to MJ being suspicious – Zendaya has good chemistry with Holland, and the decision to have MJ find out yields dividends, both in the jostling for supreme confidante with Ned and her complete aversion to flying through the air with Spider-Man – and even Brad noting how weirdly he acts. So I don’t know where they’re intending to go after JJ Jonah Jameson reveals his identity to the world during the end credits. How do you backtrack on that? If you can’t, in a way, it’s a shame this element has been discarded, as a lot of the comedy value inherent in hiding his alter ego goes with it. On the other hand… all I could think was how fantastic it was to have JK Simmons back, twelve years later, as J Jonah. It’s rightly admitting no one could better his version, and he’s duly as superb as ever, if minus a little hair (that Beck survived was no surprise, since it’s in his nature). JB Smoove had been rumoured as the new Jameson, but he’s relegated to a teacher role that, by the picture’s PG-13 nature, doesn’t really make the best use of him.

Mention of JJ brings to mind another area that has hitherto been starkly lacking in both the Webb version and the MCU: Peter’s spider-sense, or “Peter Tingle”. It’s referenced so frequently here, I can only assume the makers of Homecoming had been duly chastened for failing to feature it. And it is well used in a Force way, with Peter having to pick his way through illusions using his senses alone.

Other areas work breezily in the manner of writers in their element – the Happy/May and Ned/Betty Brant subplots are note-perfect ("Night Monkey, save us!"), and it has to be said that Favreau is tops throughout this movie; I’d much rather see this from him creatively than his personality-free Disney live-action remakes. The spectre of Tony is large, of course, and generally well-used to reflective effect. Indeed, while I’m a big supporter of Tom Holland as a fun-loving incarnation of Peter/Spidey, his plumbing the depths here is instantly affecting. Naturally, Nick/Talos needs to guilt-trip him in Tony’s place – about not being fit to take his mentor’s baton – but the character has that self-inflicted pressure anyway; it just isn’t laid on with a trowel per earlier versions. I do think they need to start dispensing with the “Peter always screws up but then puts it right”, though, or he’ll just end up looking like Condorman. The whole deal with the EDITH glasses (“Even Dead I’m The Hero”) is very funny, especially the drone hit on Brad, but a hero has to come into his own at some point.

But the most salient area where the theme of Spider-Man replacing Iron Man takes shape has nothing do with the MCU’s internal hierarchy; it’s simply that Holland is the closest the series has come to a naturally engaging, charismatic lead since Robert Downey Jr. You can make Thor and Cap funny, but it mostly has to be manufactured around them; Holland is gifted a character he can channel his energies into, even when the overall results are patchy (but not Iron Man II patchy, fortunately). It will be interesting to see where Spidey is taken following Spider-Man: Far From Home, but there’s the sense that, with one more Sony film in their agreement, and the post-credits scenes here, Kevin Feige is striving for maximum eventfulness for the character under the assumption of losing him. Which would be a shame, as Holland isn’t even the age Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield were when they took on the role.


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

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.