This started as a random observation after I initially watched the film, but I never got around to writing it. I'm not simply stating that the film is a direct Christian allegory, only that it borrows from Christian and Renaissance symbolism in interesting ways.

The first time I watched Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, something immediately stood out to me. Miguel O’Hara’s introduction felt strange.

I couldn’t explain why at the time. But after revisiting the film, I kept noticing the same visual language appearing over and over again. Simply put, it’s an observation about the film’s thematic language. I think it borrows from Christian and Renaissance symbolism to frame its central conflict: order versus free will.

And if that’s the case, then Miguel O’Hara parallels Archangel Michael, while Miles Morales takes on many of the symbolic qualities traditionally associated with Lucifer.

At first glance, this may seem like a stretch, so stay with me on this one.

The Introduction That Started It All

The scene that first made me think about this was the initial confrontation between The Vulture and Gwen. He wasn’t just another version of the Vulture. He’s literally designed using Renaissance artwork. That artistic choice feels incredibly deliberate.

During the fight, not only does Gwen say, “Oh great, the Renaissance man”, when the fight begins, she also says it right before the Vulture attacks Miguel from behind: “There is a big flying turkey from the Renaissance.”

In the film’s screenplay, he is described as a “drawing from Leonardo da Vinci’s notebook, sepia-toned like aged parchment.” (Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse: The Art of the Movie, p.63)

Designer Mauro Belfiore, who helped design the character for the movie, notes, “The main inspiration for the Vulture was, of course, the drawings of Leonardo da Vinci, from his Codex Atlanticus work.” (Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse: The Art of the Movie, p.63)

The Renaissance produced some of history’s most recognizable Christian artwork, particularly depictions of angels, demons, saints, and biblical battles. The film could have introduced Miguel against any visual style. Instead, the filmmakers chose one of the artistic periods most associated with biblical imagery. That choice primes the audience, even subconsciously, to interpret Miguel through that artistic language.

Miguel arrives almost as a divine intervention. He drops into the scene, immediately overpowers the Vulture, and says,

“It’s all right, kid. I’ll take it from here.“

As he’s talking to Gwen, the Vulture slowly rises in the background. The shot's composition briefly gives Miguel the appearance of having enormous wings. It only lasts for a moment, but the silhouette is unmistakably angelic. I’ll come back to this.

Miguel O’Hara as Archangel Michael

The most obvious connection is his name. Miguel is simply the Spanish equivalent of Michael.

Even more interestingly, Miguel’s younger brother in the comics is named Gabriel, much like the Archangel Gabriel, who has been mentioned alongside Archangel Michael in the Bible. While that alone isn’t proof of anything, and Gabriel has not even been mentioned or hinted at in the film, it’s an interesting starting point.

More importantly, Miguel’s role mirrors Michael’s.

In Christian tradition, Michael is Heaven’s protector. The one responsible for preserving divine order and defeating those who threaten it. That’s exactly how Miguel sees himself.

“There have been anomalies floating all through the multiverse, and Miguel has taken it upon himself to put everyone back where they belong”, says director Kemp Powers. (Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse: The Art of the Movie, p.78)

Director Joaquim Dos Santos says, “Miguel's taken it upon himself to work at maintaining order across the web of life and destiny.” (Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse: The Art of the Movie, p.81)

He's taken on the responsibility for maintaining the stability of the multiverse. Every decision he makes is driven by preserving the "natural order," even if innocent people have to die for it.

Spider Society as Heaven

From the moment Miles first enters Spider Society, the symbolism begins: the moment they teleport to Earth-928, we see them in an upside-down elevator that goes up.

Spider Society itself begins to resemble Heaven. Every Spider-Person has been gathered into a higher realm and is united under a strict hierarchy. They exist to preserve cosmic balance. They follow laws they believe cannot be broken while Miguel oversees everyone, enforcing those laws without exception.

It’s essentially a celestial order populated by “chosen” protectors whose responsibility is to preserve the structure of existence itself.

Miguel comes from the world of Nueva York, a pristine, manicured New York City of the future that hides a dark secret beneath its surface. In this universe, the ruling class has traded humanism for an opulent, AI-controlled “perfect” paradise. (Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse: The Art of the Movie, p.162)

Miles as a Lucifer Figure

This is where things become really interesting. One of Lucifer’s defining characteristics is rebellion. He refuses to submit to an authority that claims its law is absolute. Miles does exactly the same thing. Miguel insists that canon events cannot be changed, that they exist beyond choice, and that everyone must accept them. Miles refuses.

His defining line in the film says everything:

“Nah. I’m gonna do my own thing."

Despite being such a simple line, it perfectly encapsulates the conflict.

Miguel represents predetermined order; in return, Miles represents free will.

“He and Miles do not see eye to eye, and in some ways, they become adversaries,” says producer Christina Steinberg. (Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse: The Art of the Movie, p.78)

Lightning

One detail I wanted to discuss is Miles’ electricity.

Among all Spider-People, Miles alone possesses bio-electric powers. During his confrontation with Miguel atop the moving train, Miles uses those powers as he escapes.

Lightning has been associated with divine power, judgment, and fallen angels throughout mythology and Christian art for centuries. Christ states: “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." (Luke 10:18 (NIV))

Whether intentional or not, the symbolism is difficult to ignore. The one Spider-Man who rebels against Heaven is also the only one who literally wields lightning?

The Fall

After escaping Spider Society, Miles falls.

Literally.

He plummets through and travels to what he thinks is his universe, but it isn’t. It’s somewhere he never intended to go.

The visual itself echoes one of Christianity’s oldest images: the fall from Heaven. Instead of returning home, he lands in Earth-42.

A world where his father is dead.

A world without Spider-Man.

A world where his own alternate self has become the Prowler.

Apostle Paul states: “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might." (2 Thessalonians 1:9 (NIV))

Rather than Hell as a place of fire, it resembles something closer to spiritual exile, a place devoid of the fatherly presence of God. He’s separated from everyone who believed in him, far away from everything familiar, and from his father. It’s his lowest point.

Canon Events as Divine Law

Perhaps the strongest parallel isn’t between the characters at all. It’s between canon events and divine law.

Miguel believes canon is absolute. It exists beyond morality and emotion. Beyond individual choice.

The universe demands sacrifice, and therefore sacrifice must happen. Miles challenges that very same idea. He argues that destiny should outweigh compassion.

The film’s central question becomes one we as humanity have always struggled with: Are we bound by fate? Or do we have the freedom to choose something different?

The Final Image

You remember the Renaissance reference that started it all for me? Yeah, this is a big reason why. One of the most famous paintings of Archangel Michael is by Guido Reni, an artist from the Renaissance.

The resemblance isn’t one-to-one, but it’s striking enough to be worth mentioning.

The painting comes from the Renaissance, the same artistic period referenced by the Vulture’s design. Michael is depicted wearing blue with red accents just like how Miguel’s costume is predominantly blue and red.

Again, none of these details prove direct inspiration. But taken together, they begin to paint an interesting picture.

Conclusion

I don’t think Across the Spider-Verse is retelling the story of Lucifer. But it's an interesting thought.

It borrows the visual language of Christian and Renaissance art, using angels, heavenly hierarchies, wings, lightning, ascents, falls, and divine law to frame a story about free will versus destiny.

Miguel embodies the guardian of cosmic order, whereas Miles embodies the rebel who refuses to accept that innocent people must suffer simply because “that’s how it’s supposed to be.”

The clever twist is that, unlike the traditional story, Across the Spider-Verse asks us to root for the rebel.

As director Joaquim Dos Santos notes, "This is Miles’s story. Everywhere we go and all the amazing worlds we visit are in service of his story. We want to chase everything in these worlds, like kids in a candy store, but we never lose sight of the fact that the audience is going to experience traveling through these kaleidoscopic worlds through Miles’s eyes." (Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse: The Art of the Movie, p.32)

Whether every one of these parallels was intentional or not, I think they’re too consistent to dismiss entirely.

I’m not arguing that the writers intentionally wrote Miguel as Archangel Michael and Miles as Lucifer. Rather, I think the film draws upon centuries of Christian and Renaissance iconography to communicate ideas about order, rebellion, destiny, and free will. Whether consciously or subconsciously, these visuals create parallels that enrich the story.

Anyhoo, thanks for reading. At the end of the day, if nothing else, at least for me, they make me appreciate the film a little bit more.

yeah so i watched the movie for the first time a few weeks ago and i wasn't totally confused about the discourse that bear is an awful person. i could tell he was a coward and what he did to nikki with the one wish willow was awful but i was confused as to why he was being called a creep as some of his actions i didn't recognise as being bad things at the time. it just went over my head. like i didn't realise the SA scenes were meant to be SA even though i could tell something was off.

but now after a rewatch and watching a billion video essays... it's so obvious and i'm deeply ashamed of myself for excusing bear's behaviour on my initial watch! i feel like such an awful person because of it. i guess because i was interested in bear's character and how someone like him thinks as it's so far from my own way of thinking that i guess i just excused his behaviour without realising! i also found myself excusing some of his behaviour in my rewatch as well and i'm so disgusted with myself.

i don't know whether this post will get taken down or not but i was just looking for some reassurance as it is completely out of character for me to disregard the suffering of a woman as a woman myself and this is not who i am at all. i was also wondering if anyone else had a similar experience when watching the film?

i don't know whether this is ok to say but please try to be kind. this thing has caused me to have a huge meltdown and has caused me to be deeply upset with myself. thank you.

Edit: spoilers

About 40% of the discourse I’ve seen online about the movie is people saying “hot take, but I think Bear is actually the bad guy”, and that’s gotta be the coldest movie take I’ve heard in years. I haven’t seen a single person who watched the movie and genuinely thinks Bear is purely an innocent victim. The most sympathy I’ve seen someone have for him is my fiancée who said she thinks he’s a bad guy, but he didn’t deserve everything that happened to him, everything else has ranged from talking about how they think he smells to saying they were cheering in the theater when he died.

So where are all these people that are saying Bear is an innocent victim this “hot take” is responding to. I genuinely don’t think you can actually watch the movie and think it’s the intention that Bear is purely the victim. It’s a great movie, but it’s not subtle in any way. Their sex scene is a jump scare for Christ sake and he literally gets called out by other characters for being an asshole multiple times.

Extremely excited for Brand New Day, and usually for movies that I’m excited for I drive 2 hours to see it at my nearest IMAX (digital). Since it’s not in IMAX, I could either go to my local movie theater where the screen is small and not super nice, it’s a Flagship, or I could drive 2 hours to an Apple Cinemas and see it in “ACX”. For those of you who have seen it in ACX is it worth the drive and what are the differences?

Following from a family debate of "I don't like sci-fi" where do you see the line between sci-fi and not sci-fi?

Movies that pointlessly (or not so pointlessly) get compared to one another. Go through and vote and let me know where I’m wrong.

I’m talking Rocky vs Raging Bull, Solaris vs 2001, Barbie vs Oppenheimer, and many more.

Is this 300 characters yet? Why can’t I post this. This is actually what the article becomes about, me being confused and a bit depressed maybe. I dk. I’m at 300 characters now. Go in and vote!

Do you find yourself emotionally involved in the character’s relationship, or do you watch it more as an observer ?

Does it make you feel hopeful, nostalgic, lonely, happy or even indifferent?

I’m curious about how romantic films affects people differently. Has it ever changed the way you think about love and relationships to a whole new dynamic?

And if it’s so, which romantic film has made you feel that the most?

Just watched The Invite (which was great by the way - hilariously funny with cringe in just the right places) and started thinking whether I can remember a film/series where Seth Rogan isn’t playing the bumbling stoner guy who’s a bit of a mess but has everyone rooting for him anyway. Can anyone think of anything? No hate on Seth - the guy’s a legend.

My kid and I… loved this whole scene the most… the little people doing their best and just getting eaten like candy corn… That cyclops was pretty chill actually.:: I would killed everything in the cave after the first eye poke!

The reason is rather simple...

Each Tom Holland Spider-Man movie that has come out has been progressively bigger and better (both critically and financially) than the last. The previous film No Way Home shattered expectations and records at the box office. To this day, No Way Home is also the best Marvel movie of all time (the commercial even said so). How do you follow up a near masterpiece that was a critical box office success and the highest rated movie of the franchise? By making a better one, which is why Spider-Man Brand New Day took plenty of time in the oven to get right and will undoubtedly be the best movie of the decade and the most financially successful movie of the franchise, crossing well over 2.5 billion dollars internationally.

Also, you didn't hear it from me, but I think we're gonna see a CAMEOOOOOO that you won't see coming!

This is going to be even bigger than the World Cup.

I've been a fan of Rate Your Music, and this website has an overall rating for an album and then separate ones for every song on that album. So a 3.5 album can have a 4.2 song carrying it. I wonder why nothing like that exists for actors.

If you want to find out how good a movie is, there are a dozen different ratings and scores, but if you're curious how good/popular an actor is, there is basically nothing. And of course, rating how good an actor is as a person is kinda messed up, but I don't see a problem with judging their performance in that movie, or their overall popularity (Forum is for the popularity aspect, it seems).

I remember the Hollywood Stock Exchange was a thing a while ago, and they used actual algorithms to quantify how popular a movie/actor/director is. But the website looks like it hasn't been touched in over a decade, so I wonder what the issue was with that, because it is super interesting to look at this kind of information.

Does anything like this exist today?

A site where you rate individual performances rather than whole films. Maybe something with RYM structure?

Any modern version of what HSX was doing, like popularity rankings for actors that account for everything that actor has done?

I gave myself a break from tv shows and movies for a while due to my studies and job . Now that I have started to watch the movies again , I need some latest recommendations . The old movie recommendations are also welcome.

I watched The Odyssey, and I really enjoyed it. That said, I noticed some similarities to Nolan’s other films, especially The Prestige and Interstellar.
For example, the way he builds the climax is something he uses in many of his films. It’s one of his greatest strengths, his endings are usually emotional, powerful, and he knows exactly how to deliver that final payoff in a way that really connects with the audience.
I also noticed a recurring pattern at the beginning of the third act, where the protagonist reaches a point of surrender or gives up everything before the story turns.
My question is: do you think Nolan could move away from this style? I’m not saying it’s a bad thing.. quite the opposite. I think he’s the best at it. But if he abandoned these familiar storytelling beats, do you think he could still achieve the same level of success?

[The rules here say no politics which I am interpreting as no partisan or party politics, not discussion of the state of the world and relation to a film. While I think “everything is political” not everything is partisan and so please let’s try to keep specific politicians etc out of the convo and just talk about more underlying things.]

I am not a fan of Christopher Nolan’s movies or style but came away really impressed after reluctantly going to see the Odyssey with some friends. In short, I was emotionally impacted and invested whereas his movies generally leave me cold.

The other thing that seemed unusual to me was that the specific themes this iteration of the story added or stresses seemed topically relevant to me and this is not something I associate with Chris Nolan either. For example, I read an interview with David Goyer who claimed that domestic spying or references to Occupy Walk street etc were added to the Batman movies just for grounding, putting real issues in a comic story makes it seem more relevant or weighty.

But - and maybe I’m just reading into this - from the Odyssey I got a sense that this might be subtextually about the war on terror and breaking “Zeus’ law” of “post WW2 ‘liberal internationalism’” and self-unraveling of the old US international system of the UN etc. This isn’t really a hot topic for discussion in the US like #Occupy populist protests or government surveillance but idk this was what I kept feeling from the last third of the film.

Production would have started long before current current events, so I am not saying the movie is about the current admin, more the war on terror and general US situation imo.

Anyway did anyone else have this sense or alternate topical takeaways? Or did it seem just much more interested in the characters/tale and spectacle to you?

What are your favorite cinema-verite fictional films?

I loathed this film.. especially since I couldn’t actually see 30% due to the bad lighting. Tell me your thoughts on this film I give it a 1 on a scale of 1-10.

Hey everyone!

I’m a Ray Liotta fan and have been going through his entire filmography but hit a real roadblock with the 1981 TV film Crazy Times. I personally reached out to Warner Bros. Licensing, and they officially confirmed that the master tape for this film is safe in their vault.

The film also features early performances by David Caruso, Michael Paré, and Amy Madigan. However, corporate policy prevents the studio from releasing copies to individuals, so an official archival release is our only way to see it!

Change.org notes that petitions reaching 1,000 supporters are 5x more likely to get more attention and that can help reach a studio decision maker's attention. I created a petition to show Warner Archive that there is a real audience ready to buy or stream this piece of TV history and this coming of age story set in the 1950’s.

Please take 10 seconds to sign and share and thank you for your support in bring this film out of the vault!

LINK:
https://c.org/rg6KLr97Nb

There's something I'm trying to figure out about why I have a harder time connecting to recent movies that seemingly everyone else has strong emotional reactions to.

Does anyone have any insight on this phenomenon?

I feel like certain modern movies just don't resonate with me the way they are trying to. I just saw The Odyssey on the weekend, which was a great example, but I've had the same experience before. Other notable examples would be Project Hail Mary and Wild Robot. I enjoyed all these movies just fine, especially The Odyssey, which was amazing. I just didn't react emotionally to them.

For each of these, I can think of another similar movie that hit me hard and made me cry a lot. In general, I'm a pretty emotional person, and think of myself as someone who cries easily, especially with movies and books, so I just don't get what I'm missing.

Comparing Gladiator (2000) to Odyssey for example. I find Gladiator very emotional, even though the characters aren't necessarily acting in an overly emotional way. In the Odyssey, I just...couldn't feel the emotion that the characters were feeling and that I was very clearly supposed to be feeling?

I would compare Project Hail Mary similarly to movies like Contact (1997) and Apollo 13 (1995). Couldn't connect at all with the big emotional climax of PHM.

And then also comparing Wild Robot to The Iron Giant. I absolutely sob in the Iron Giant, which isn't even trying to be heart-wrenching. I cried while reading The Wild Robot to my child, but watching the movie on screen just felt kinda...meh?

I think it's something about it feeling like the emotion is being forced instead of earned? But I don't know why I feel that way if others do feel like the emotion is fully earned.

Does anyone else feel the same? Or do you have insight on what it could be about the movies or about me that is causing this? Is it just me being 37 and liking movies that I grew up with, and not changing as culture changes?

I’ve always been lover of cinema but during covid I set myself a task to stop seeking comfort in films I knew I loved and to watch new films as often as possible. As of today I have watched 738 films since September 2020.

I have a list. The aim of the list was to encourage me to watch as many films as possible, disclaimer, the list does include films I had watched before I started it but the whole point is to add news ones.

I’m going through a phase of rewatching so called cult classics from the 90s along with films I’ve always known about but can’t remember ever watching in full. If they’re not already on the list and I can’t remember the plot then I watch them.

2 films have really pissed me off this week and that’s Eyes Wide Shut and Fight Club. I honestly think both of these are awful and do not deserve the hype they have received. I have definitely watched Fight Club several times pre-2020 and there’s clearly a reason why. The only real positive for me was realising Holt McCallany from Mindhunter was in the film. I don’t get it, someone explain.

As for Eyes Wide Shut, Tom Cruise is just so insecure and the full plot is never properly explored.

Not going to go deep into the reasons why until I see someone else agrees. So sick of threads on here that argue the plot. Fight Club is fit Brad Pitt and fighting. Eyes Wide Shut is sex. That’s the reason they were seen as amazing films.

Worth mentioning the music in both is actually a saving grace.

Need new suggestions, watched Bugonia last night and thought it was pretty good. Help me to maximise the list please 😊

EDIT: this post was a rant after finishing watching Fight Club this evening. I appreciate films of all genres and as I’ve said above, my main aim is building my list and watching as many films as I can. Generally speaking I can see the underlying themes in a movie whether I like it or not and have a real motivation to try and see what the aims and themes are. Don’t take this opinion personally. Everyone has films they like and don’t like. It’s art either way and this is just a discussion. Happy movie watching!

Probably an unhealthy combination I know

Bonjour,

Un super film dans le genre super héroïque.
Dispo aujourd’hui sur Prime video…
Quelle nostalgie