![]() ![]() ![]() It drew on the elegant film-noir expressionism of the graphic novels of the ’90s, and it tapped their terse wit. One of the many pleasures of “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” was that, as the first “Spider-Man” movie (and one of the only films of the Marvel/DC movie era) that was animated, it channeled the look and spirit and knowingly flat wonder of comic books. That’s what Martin Scorsese meant when he declared, in 2019, that Marvel movies aren’t cinema. Within that, a lot of them are fun enough, but there’s no mystery to them. But big-studio comic-book films tend to be top-heavy, rib-nudging, and visually bombastic, with rigidly overdetermined arcs. They’re really two entirely different forms.Ĭomic books, as I recall them from my youth, are fleet, terse, and puckishly deadpan, and you never know what the next panel will bring. ![]() ![]() A reason for that relates to one of the least-remarked-upon insanities of our comic-book-movie culture, which is that comic-book films, or 98 percent of them anyway, couldn’t be further removed - in tone, look, attitude, and effect - from comic books. Released in 2018, it was a comic-book movie so spry and urgent, with such hypnotic imagery, that it left most comic-book movies in the dust. Or maybe the second, since “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” was like that too. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |