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

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

If a rat were to walk in here right now as I'm talking, would you treat it to a saucer of your delicious milk?

Inglourious Basterds (2009)
(SPOILERS) His staunchest fans would doubtless claim Tarantino has never taken a wrong step, but for me, his post-Pulp Fiction output had been either not quite as satisfying (Jackie Brown), empty spectacle (the Kill Bills) or wretched (Death Proof). It wasn’t until Inglourious Basterds that he recovered his mojo, revelling in an alternate World War II where Adolf didn’t just lose but also got machine gunned to death in a movie theatre showing a warmly received Goebbels-produced propaganda film. It may not be his masterpiece – as Aldo Raines refers to the swastika engraved on “Jew hunter” Hans Landa’s forehead, and as Tarantino actually saw the potential of his script – but it’s brimming with ideas and energy.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994)
(SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump. And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

Hey, everybody. The bellboy's here.

Four Rooms (1995)
(SPOILERS) I had an idea that I’d only seen part of Four Rooms previously, and having now definitively watched the entire thing, I can see where that notion sprang from. It’s a picture that actively encourages you to think it never existed. Much of it isn’t even actively terrible – although, at the same time, it couldn’t be labelled remotely good– but it’s so utterly lethargic, so lacking in the energy, enthusiasm and inventiveness that characterises these filmmakers at their best – and yes, I’m including Rodriguez, although it’s a very limited corner for him – that it’s very easy to banish the entire misbegotten enterprise from your mind.

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 am forever driven on this quest.

Ad Astra (2019)
(SPOILERS) Would Apocalypse Now have finished up as a classic if Captain Willard had been ordered on a mission to exterminate his mad dad with extreme prejudice, rather than a mysterious and off-reservation colonel? Ad Astra features many stunning elements. It’s an undeniably classy piece of filmmaking from James Gray, who establishes his tone from the get-go and keeps it consistent, even through various showy set pieces. But the decision to give its lead character an existential crisis entirely revolving around his absent father is its reductive, fatal flaw, ultimately deflating much of the air from Gray’s space balloon.

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

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.

The adversary oft comes in the shape of a he-goat.

The Witch (2015)
(SPOILERS) I’m not the biggest of horror buffs, so Stephen King commenting that The Witchscared the hell out of me” might have given me pause for what was in store. Fortunately, he’s the same author extraordinaire who referred to Crimson Peak as “just fucking terrifying” (it isn’t). That, and that general reactions to Robert Eggers’ film have fluctuated across the scale, from the King-type response on one end of the spectrum to accounts of unrelieved boredom on the other. The latter response may also contextualise the former, depending on just what King is referring to, because what’s scary about The Witch isn’t, for the most part, scary in the classically understood horror sense. It’s scary in the way The Wicker Man is scary, existentially gnawing away at one through judicious martialling of atmosphere, setting and theme.


Indeed, this is far more impressive a work than Ben Wheatley’s Kill List, which had hitherto been compared to The Wicker Man, succeeding admirably …