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

Who’s got the Figgy Port?

Loki (2021) (SPOILERS) Can something be of redeemable value and shot through with woke (the answer is: Mad Max: Fury Road )? The two attributes certainly sound essentially irreconcilable, and Loki ’s tendencies – obviously, with new improved super-progressive Kevin Feige touting Disney’s uber-agenda – undeniably get in the way of what might have been a top-tier MCU entry from realising its full potential. But there are nevertheless solid bursts of highly engaging storytelling in the mix here, for all its less cherishable motivations. It also boasts an effortlessly commanding lead performance from Tom Hiddleston; that alone puts Loki head and shoulders above the other limited series thus far.

Here’s Bloody Justice for you.

Laughter in Paradise (1951) (SPOILERS) The beginning of a comedic run for director-producer Mario Zampa that spanned much of the 1950s, invariably aided by writers Michael Pertwee and Jack Davies (the latter went on to pen a spate of Norman Wisdom pictures including The Early Bird , and also comedy rally classic Monte Carlo or Bust! ) As usual with these Pertwee jaunts, Laughter in Paradise boasts a sparky premise – renowned practical joker bequeaths a fortune to four relatives, on condition they complete selected tasks that tickle him – and more than enough resultant situational humour.

Damn prairie dog burrow!

Tremors (1990) (SPOILERS) I suspect the reason the horror comedy – or the sci-fi comedy, come to that – doesn’t tend to be the slam-dunk goldmine many assume it must be, is because it takes a certain sensibility to do it right. Everyone isn’t a Joe Dante or Sam Raimi, or a John Landis, John Carpenter, Edgar Wright, Christopher Landon or even a Peter Jackson or Tim Burton, and the genre is littered with financial failures, some of them very good failures (and a good number of them from the names mentioned). Tremors was one, only proving a hit on video (hence six sequels at last count). It also failed to make Ron Underwood a directing legend.

You nicknamed my daughter after the Loch Ness Monster?

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 (2012) The final finale of the Twilight saga, in which pig-boy Jacob tells Bella that, “No, it's not like that at all!” after she accuses him of being a paedo. But then she comes around to his viewpoint, doubtless displaying the kind of denial many parents did who let their kids spend time with Jimmy Savile or Gary Glitter during the ‘70s. It's lucky little Renesmee will be an adult by the age of seven, right? Right... Jacob even jokes that he should start calling Edward, “Dad”. And all the while they smile and smile.

It’ll be like living in the top drawer of a glass box.

Someone’s Watching Me! (1978) (SPOILERS) The first of a pair of TV movies John Carpenter directed in the 1970s, but Someone’s Watching Me! is more affiliated, in genre terms, to his breakout hit ( Halloween ) and reasonably successful writing job ( The Eyes of Laura Mars ) of the same year than the also-small-screen Elvis . Carpenter wrote a slew of gun-for-hire scripts during this period – some of which went on to see the twilight of day during the 1990s – so directing Someone’s Watching Me! was not a given. It’s well-enough made and has its moments of suspense, but you sorely miss a signature Carpenter theme – it was by Harry Sukman, his penultimate work, the final being Salem’s Lot – and it really does feel very TV movie-ish.

Somewhere out there is a lady who I think will never be a nun.

The Sound of Music (1965) (SPOILERS) One of the most successful movies ever made – and the most successful musical – The Sound of Music has earned probably quite enough unfiltered adulation over the years to drown out the dissenting voices, those that denounce it as an inveterately saccharine, hollow confection warranting no truck. It’s certainly true that there are impossibly nice and wholesome elements here, from Julie Andrews’ career-dooming stereotype governess to the seven sonorous children more than willing to dress up in old curtains and join her gallivanting troupe. Whether the consequence is something insidious in its infectious spirit is debatable, but I’ll admit that it manages to ensnare me. I don’t think I’d seen the movie in its entirety since I was a kid, and maybe that formativeness is a key brainwashing facet of its appeal, but it retains its essential lustre just the same.

I’m just glad Will Smith isn’t alive to see this.

The Tomorrow War (2021) (SPOILERS). Not so much tomorrow as yesterday. There’s a strong sense of déjà vu watching The Tomorrow War , so doggedly derivative is it of every time-travel/alien war/apocalyptic sci-fi movie of the past forty years. Not helping it stand out from the pack are doughy lead Chris Pratt, damned to look forever on the beefy side no matter how ripped he is and lacking the chops or gravitas for straight roles, and debut live-action director Chris McKay, who manages to deliver the goods in a serviceably anonymous fashion.

As in the hokey kids’ show guy?

A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t think Mr Rogers could have been any creepier had Kevin Spacey played him. It isn’t just the baggage Tom Hanks brings, and whether or not he’s the adrenochrome lord to the stars and/or in Guantanamo and/or dead and/or going to make a perfectly dreadful Colonel Tom Parker and an equally awful Geppetto; it’s that his performance is so constipated and mannered an imitation of Mr Rogers’ genuineness that this “biopic” takes on a fundamentally sinister turn. His every scene with a youngster isn’t so much exuding benevolent empathy as suggestive of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang ’s Child Catcher let loose in a TV studio (and again, this bodes well for Geppetto). Extend that to A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood ’s conceit, that Mr Rogers’ life is one of a sociopathic shrink milking angst from his victims/patients in order to get some kind of satiating high – a bit like a rejuvenating drug, on that score – and you have a deeply unsettli

What's a movie star need a rocket for anyway?

The Rocketeer (1991) (SPOILERS) The Rocketeer has a fantastic poster. One of the best of the last thirty years (and while that may seem like faint praise, what with poster design being a dying art – I’m looking at you Marvel, or Amazon and the recent The Tomorrow War – it isn’t meant to be). The movie itself, however, tends towards stodge. Unremarkable pictures with a wide/cult fanbase, conditioned by childhood nostalgia, are ten-a-penny – Willow for example – and in this case, there was also a reasonably warm critical reception. But such an embrace can’t alter that Joe Johnston makes an inveterately bland, tepid movie director. His “feel” for period here got him The First Avenger: Captain America gig, a bland, tepid movie tending towards stodge. So at least he’s consistent.

Why don't we go on a picnic, up the hill?

Invaders from Mars (1986) (SPOILERS) One can wax thematical over the number of remakes of ’50s movies in the ’80s – and ’50s SF movies in particular – and of how they represent ever-present Cold War and nuclear threats, and steadily increasing social and familial paranoias and disintegrating values. Really, though, it’s mostly down to the nostalgia of filmmakers for whom such pictures were formative influences (and studios hoping to make an easy buck on a library property). Tobe Hooper’s version of nostalgia, however, is not so readily discernible as a John Carpenter or a David Cronenberg (not that Cronenberg could foment such vibes, any more than a trip to the dental hygienist). Because his directorial qualities are not so readily discernible. Tobe Hooper movies tend to be a bit shit. Which makes it unsurprising that Invaders from Mars is a bit shit.