Skip to main content

My name's the Human Spider!

Spider-Man
(2002)

(SPOILERS) I’d recalled Sam Raimi somewhat performing with his hand in his pockets for his first Spidey outing, reining in his style in order to prove to Sony he could do the necessaries and deliver the required blockbuster (and only really becoming unleashed for the sequels), but his first Spider-Man is actually most striking for how much flourish, colour and inventiveness there is from the get-go. Perhaps that’s a consequence of a decade of actually stylistically restricted MCU movies, but even the formally freer DCEU has yet to produce anything approaching both his sense of panache and fun.

Because there’s a lot of goofy fun here, despite the sombre, guilt-ridden hero at its core (I know the Spidey faithful bemoan The MCU Spidey for his lack of burden, seeing guilt as essential to the character, but I’ve found it refreshing). And despite Tobey Maguire, even though, in many ways he’s smart casting, almost entirely failing to bring the ready quipster side of the Spidey to the screen. On the other hand, he’s an entirely convincing nerd, and Raimi, an entirely convincing nerd himself, delights in putting Peter Parker through the wringer; even when the worm turns and Peter pounds Flash Thompson (I’d completely not realised this was a young Joe Manganiello, but not thatyoung, since hardly anyone playing a teenager here looks less than 25). He’s also entirely convincing in his beta-male behaviour, taking the emotional beating Harry (James Franco, at his slimy best) inflicts on him when Osborne Jr snatches Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst, spirited and enthusiastic in a not overly giving part) away from him.

Raimi picks his cast keenly all-round, though. I was a bit cool on the movie on first viewing, enjoying it a lot more on subsequent visits (crazy as this may seem, more than the “best superhero movie” that is the first sequel), and that’s mostly down to Willem Dafoe’s deliriously crazed performance as Norman Osborne/ Green Goblin. Sure, I can make no arguments that the costume isn’t a now standard-issue armoured mech suit disappointment, but Dafoe inhabits the role with such relish, and Raimi supports him with such gleeful conviction, that one is keen to get back to him whenever we’re with the heroes of the piece. The Gollum-esque internal struggle for dominance between the warring sides of his character – defined by the mesmerising mirror scene – is an absolute highlight, and if Parker’s lacking in witty lines, Norman Osborn and the Goblin are ever ready with them (and really, you can’t but sympathise with Norman having Franco as a son).

A degree of sympathy is also engendered by having Norman up against it, first with the military withdrawing his contract from under him, and then again when he’s ousted by the OsCorp board; even the Goblin killing his chief scientist is something Norman regrets. And when he turns fully, the result is a marvellously unsettling Thanksgiving dinner (well, it never gets to the eating part), as Norman arrives with the kind of grin only Dafoe can muster and an “Aunt May. I’m sorry I’m late. Work was murder” before adding “I uh picked up a fruit cake”. He maligns Peter’s room (“Bit of a slob, isn’t he?”) and then leaves in a hurry – but not before sabotaging Harry’s already waning chances with MJ – having realised Spidey’s true identity. I also love that he shows up at The Daily Bugle to threaten J Jonah, and even more that he hides under a shawl pretending to be an old lady in a burning building. The only thing against him in all this, villainy-wise – and it is a massive blunder – is that he has Spider-Man at his mercy, to offer him a partnership no less, and doesn’t even sneak a peek under his mask.

Nicholson’s and Ledger’s Jokers still gets all the credit for comic book villains, but for my money Dafoe is every bit their equal (I do think it’s his costume that gets in the way of the recognition he deserves). Notably, and there are various clear parallels with Burton’s Batman here, the principals’ “births” are interlinked, here born on the same night. Significantly too, Peter doesn’t realise the Goblin is Norman until the latter reveals himself at the end, saying very little for Peter’s proactivity throughout (on that score, Spider-Man is rather slack, in the same way origin movies, with so many elements to juggle, often are).

Elsewhere, JK Simmons is an absolute blast as J Jonah Jameson; has a comic book character ever been more perfectly cast? His JJJ definitely tends to the more fun side of the various comic book portrayals, from his headlines (“Spider-Man – hero or menace?”) to his desire to get a patent on the name Green Goblin, to his intricate knowledge of defamation (“I resent that! Slander is spoken. In print, it’s libel”) and who he doestrust (“My barber”). It’s little surprise Simmons has returned to the role this year, as trying to find a worthy replacement would be a fool’s errand. There’s also Bruce Campbell as a wrestling announcer in Peter’s early fights for cash (a great sequence), Cliff Robertson exactly the incarnation of the insufferably honourable Uncle Ben one would expect, and Rosemary Harris the encapsulation of Aunt May (well until Marisa Tomei came along); her slapping Norman’s fingers for not waiting to eat is priceless.

As much a star are Raimi’s visuals, though. The gusto here is infectious, from the over-enunciated sound effect when Peter is first bitten, to his tingling spider-sense, to the masterful use of slow motion in action scenes (his corridor altercation with Flash is a particular knockout), to imaginative montage sequences (Peter’s hallucinatory fever post-bite, complete with skull), staging (Peter on the ceiling, Norman down below, a drop of blood poised to fall) and cutting (explosive debris transformed into raining graduation hats). In contrast to most superhero movies, Raimi shoots 1:85:1 to take advantage of the vertiginous nature of the wallcrawler (only switching to 2:40:1 for the sequel – apparently due to the demands of Doc Ock’s tentacles, although some have also cited the subway train fight). He also sets as much of the fledgling CGI-dependent web slinging at night as he can; there’s been criticism in hindsight of the rudimentary quality of virtual Spidey, but in fairness, Raimi’s evidently aware of the limitations in his cutting decisions. Unlike many directors, he doesn’t allow the effects to do everything (and thereby unflattering over-expose their shortcomings).

Yes, the sales blueprint of Batman is all over this, from a pop act intruding on the action (Macy Gray performing during the carnival sequence) to Danny Elfman’s so-so score, but Raimi has put together an altogether more satisfying movie, understanding that you can’t just have mood; you also need to make a superhero do vaguely super things. While other movies of the period haven’t aged terribly well (X-Men), the most refreshing element of this and a couple of others (Ang Lee’s Hulk, Del Toro’s Blade II) is seeing talented filmmakers allowed to show their chops, rather than conform to producer-led dictates (although, it sounds as if the cheesy post-9/11 response of New Yorkers’ “You harm one of us, you harm all of us” was down to Raimi himself). That Spider-Man was just the start of a trilogy for the director but works as a self-contained story – yes, there are mentions of Eddie Brock and Curt Connors, Harry is grieving, and Peter’s poised for a sequel – shows clearly that when Sony left Raimi behind, they also left behind their ability to make a solid Spidey movie. Well, for about twelve years.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

This popularity of yours. Is there a trick to it?

The Two Popes (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes joke, in which he dropped The Two Popes onto a list of the year’s films about paedophiles, rather preceded the picture’s Oscar prospects (three nominations), but also rather encapsulated the conversation currently synonymous with the forever tainted Roman Catholic church; it’s the first thing anyone thinks of. And let’s face it, Jonathan Pryce’s unamused response to the gag could have been similarly reserved for the fate of his respected but neglected film. More people will have heard Ricky’s joke than will surely ever see the movie. Which, aside from a couple of solid lead performances, probably isn’t such an omission.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.