Skip to main content

Guy name Otto Octavius ends up with eight limbs. What are the odds?

Spider-Man 2
(2004)

(SPOILERS) It may be a relatively minor heresy, as these things go, but I prefer the first Spider-Man to Sam Raimi’s praise-showered follow up. More accomplished in terms of character work, effects and interweaving plotting it may be, but Spider-Man 2 just isn’t as much fun.

There’s certainly amusement to be had from Raimi revelling in his use of Peter Parker as a punching bag (not as extreme as the tortures inflicted upon Bruce Campbell’s Ash, but in the same ballpark), be it the character’s pallid resistance to embarking on a relationship with MJ – Dunst gets stick for being an unsympathetic love interest, but really, MJ’s simply driven to others’ arms by Peter’s anaemic retreat from any kind of consummation – his guilt over Uncle Ben, and over Norman (both Aunt May and Harry have things to say when they learn the respective truths), his financial woes, his study woes, and his existential doubt over his calling.

The latter comes via a slightly irksome Superman II-esque subplot in which Peter loses his powers (from Spider-Man No More!) It feels too soon to be going down that route, straight after the character’s genesis. The rejection-of-calling trope generally is an overused and inert one that rarely works (something like Iron Man Three did things creatively, divesting its hero rather than have him out-and-out give up, but even that gets brick bats from those who think it dispensed with the essence of what you want to see in an Iron Man movie).

Alfred Molina delivers a reliable, authentic performance as Octavius (less so is his virtual double), but for me, while Doc Ock is technically superior to his villainous predecessor, he’s still little more than a Goblin redux (amenable but ambitious scientist conducts experiment that turns him into a psycho) – just without the unvarnished relish Dafoe brings to such Machiavellian mischief making.

Yes, the operation sequence attempting to remove his vestigial limbs is a Raimi masterclass in PG-13 comic book horror, but it’s also notable that the picture stints on the action for long stretches, expecting the character arcs to be sufficiently involving to support the longueurs; there’s a bank robbery (Peter luckily happens to be on the scene) and the subway train sequence (which has tremendous action beats, but also irks both for the compulsion the Raimi trilogy has to show Maguire unmasked at any opportunity and the reheat of New Yorkers uniting in the face of a (terrorist) threat that already felt clumsy in the first movie). Doc Ock takes Aunt May hostage. Then he takes MJ hostage. Then he disappears for a good spell. There’s also another burning building (the main takeaway here, rather than Peter’s heroism, is the father who doesn’trush inside to save his daughter but leaves Peter to it). Raimi has a knack for making whatever’s onscreen at least watchable, Oz the Great and Powerful aside, but Oscar winner Alvin Sargent (Julia, Ordinary People) – from a story by Alfred Gough, Miles Millar and Michael Chabon, the latter recently announced as the Picard showrunner – chartsverytraditional beats. We even have a repeat of the main villain capturing Spidey and yet again failing to unmask him (albeit, he leaves that to Harry).

The Octavius material is at least appreciably front-loaded, so we get to know him as a nice guy – with a nice wife – before things go pear-shaped. He even tells bad jokes (“We found the rubber band”), which may not have been, but seems like a very Raimi touch. But Doc Ock just isn’t an interesting baddy, and his plans aren’t very interesting either. It isn’t until the final confrontation that Molina is able to recapture some juice, as Peter pleads with him for control of his tentacles (their responsive AI nature is another neat touch). If this makes it sound like the movie is failing, it’s more to point out that I don’t think its areas of success are as unparalleled as is often made out.

On which subject, while Franco brings his natural charm to bear as smug, abrasive and now increasingly obsessive Harry – this works in the Raimi movies, but repeating it in the Garfield outings when it had already been thoroughly explored was a big mistake – the relationship between Peter and MJ isn’t compelling the way it needs to be. I’m sure Mageina Tovah’s Ursula, the moon-eyed ditzy daughter of Peter’s landlord (Elya Baskin), is there simply as a holding pattern of someone who can see Peter’s better qualities, but she’s so much more affecting than MJ, you rather wish these two “losers” got together instead of being asked to care whether MJ goes down the aisle with J Jonah Jameson’s son.

Elsewhere, JK Simmons dutifully steals the entire show whenever J Jonah Jameson’s onscreen, the priceless moment of the movie being his sustained laugh in response to Peter asking “Can you pay me in advance?” Raimi naturally throws in humorous touches throughout – I particularly like the busker of the classic Spider-Man theme reflecting Peter’s moods and Campbell’s snooty usher – as well as setting up elements that would never have a payoff, from Dylan Baker’s Curt Connors as the Lizard to the potential avenue for Man-Wolf to appear (Harry’s son’s a spaceman). That said, this is simultaneously much more keyed in to sequel continuity, with Harry discovering his father’s hidden chambers and being haunted by his mirror self setting up the third instalment.

Raimi also shifts to the 2:35:1 aspect ratio seamlessly, although aerial sequences are consequently now very much using streets as corridors, blocking off the sides of the frame to achieve a similar effect to previously. Spider-Man 2 won the best visual effects Oscar (the only such award for the Raimi trilogy), but it’s nevertheless noticeable how some of the virtual Doc Ock and Spideys haven’t aged well; as with the previous instalment, Raimi knows not to linger on shots – a failing of the Wachowski sisters in The Matrix Reloaded – but he’s unable to disguise the joins.

The irony is that Spider-Man 2’s tentacle removal scene was trumpeted as Raimi unleashed, but he’s actually more visually anarchic in the first movie. There’s a degree of responsibility here that dampens down the proceedings a little too much. For every masterful composition (and the car hurtling through the restaurant window remains masterful), there’s a feeling that this is almost toomeasured, sustained, composed. Being mature and studied, hitting all the right notes, doesn’t altogether suit the director, even if it brought the greatest acclaim of his career.


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.