Life in the big city is tough - finding a place to live, finding a job to pay for said place, supporting relatives, finding time for romance and fighting a scientist with mechanical arms.
Spider-Man 2 is a great sequel. If you found the first movie a little ponderous and lacking in its own style, this movie solves those problems. The movie is faster, funnier and - for me - has something the first movie suffered from a lack of: texture.
The original Spider-Man has a big budget and special effects, but the movie feels small.
At no point during the first movie does it feel like there is a world outside of the camera frame.
It also feels like Sam Raimi is operating with a hand tied behind his back. Spider-Man 2 benefits from a filmmaker who has the space to show what he does best.
The addition of frequent Raimi collaborators Bill Pope as Director of Photography and Bob Muwarski as sole editor (he co-edited the first film) might have something to do with it.
Raimi is more unleashed - the hospital sequence is pure Evil Dead - but the direction overall feels looser and more alive.
In certain respects, Spider-Man 2 feels like Batman Returns in that it feels like the filmmaker is not forced into a box.
There are moments where Raimi’s over-stylization works against key moments - Rosie’s death - played in reflections on the glass which kill her - feels like something out of a slasher movie.
Aside from the visual fireworks, Raimi is known for his sense of humor. Aside from a couple of moments, Spider-Man is completely earnest. There are a couple of jokes, but they are mostly softballs. Raimi is known for gags and in the first Spider-Man it feels like he is trying to be as sincere as possible.
With Spider-Man 2 it feels like Raimi has the confidence to be sillier and weirder.
The character of Mr Ditkovich should not work - he is a live-action cartoon, solely concerned with ’Rent!’ He would have been completely out of place in the first movie, but in the wacky world of Spider-Man 2, he is just one of many denizens in this cartoon version of New York.
It does not entirely work, but to go back to that word texture, elements like the Mr Ditkovich character (and his daughter Yelena) add more character to the world of this series.
I did not bring him up in the first review. But JK Simmons is perfectly cast as J Jonah Jameson. In the first movie he was an oasis of levity - in Spider-Man 2, he feels more of a piece with the movie he is in. His interplay with Ted Raimi, Bill Nunn and Elizabeth Banks is so fast and funny I wished there was more of it in the movie.
While I enjoy the injection of humor and a more silly sensibility, it never feels at the expense of the drama or stakes.
Melodrama is easy to parody, but this movie manages to thread the needle without the whole enterprise coming off ridiculous.
The characters feel more fleshed out and nuanced than in the first movie. Unlike the Marvel iteration, the Raimi movies take the time to have Peter wrestle with the consequences of his actions.
This is most obvious in Peter and Mary Jane’s romance. The cliche would be to fast forward to them together, but this movie delays that resolution. Partially it is because he never asks her out, and also because his time is taken up with being Spider-Man. Mary Jane does not exist to be Peter’s girlfriend - not only does she have career goals and struggles, she has relationships. She even tells Peter that he has terrible timing, and is never around.
When I was a teen watching this movie in the cinema, I found the emotionality of the Raimi Spider-Man films depressing. Age and an 8-movie marathon later, this emphasis on consequence is refreshing. Plus with Mary Jane, it is great to hear a character bluntly state the problems they have with a potential romantic partner. Once again, Kristen Dunst knocks it out of the park.
This movie also has a sense of class-consciousness that the other iterations of Spider-Man ignore. Peter spends this movie and the next one trying to find steady employment. One thing I like about this movie is that while the romantic subplot is (tentatively) brought to a resolution, Peter’s financial situation is left up in the air.
I almost forgot to bring up the villain.
As a kid I loved Dr Octopus, and so I was really excited when this movie was coming out.
On this rewatch, I liked Alfred Molina’s performance - there is a simmering rage to his performance that I locked into. I am not sure he is as iconic as Dafoe’s Goblin, but I think his performance might be more fully realized. Dafoe’s Osborne and the Goblin feel like distinct personas, whereas it feels like the qualities that Octavius reflects after his accident already existed in his personality. He has a bluntness and directness in his interactions with people which feel like primers for how he attacks obstacles with the arms.
He also does not have to worry about a mask.
While I think I prefer his style of performance, outside of the action sequences, I cannot point to a great scene of performance. It might be an effect of the edit and the focus on Peter’s struggle, but after his introduction Otto feels a little two-dimensional.
I like the sequence of Otto with his wife Rosalie (Donna Murphy) but after she dies, it never feels like that loss is reflected in Molina’s performance. I kept expecting him to reference it or break down, but aside from his reaction when she dies, this thread is dropped in favor of his reactor plot.
With his wife dead and the arms urging, perhaps the intention is to show how Otto acts when he is not held in check. It felt like his wife was his connection to human empathy. I feel like more could have been made of this because she feels like a script solution to make Otto Octavious seem more human before his transformation.
The presentation of Dr Octopus is also impressive. The CGI has aged, but it is well-integrated to the film, and I was impressed by how many shots of the arms were real. While computer-generated effects were employed for wide shots and movement, for a lot of the close-quarters sequences Doc Ock’s arms are obviously practical, brought to life by puppeteers. Having those arms represented by real props occupying space and interacting with the performers felt like an extension of the movie’s focus on the dangers Spider-Man faces.
While I highlighted the movies’ embrace of ridiculousness, the movie also feels more assured in terms of its restraint - one of the most intense scenes in the film is Peter’s confession of his involvement in Uncle Ben’s death. Raimi covers the fallout (Aunt Mary quietly rising from her seat and leaving the room) in a wide shot, letting the audience sit with the moment.
The movie also earns its more rousing moments. While the bridge sequence in the original feels self-conscious and cheesy, the moment of community solidarity on the train feels more organic. The Christ symbolism is obvious, but it fits Peter’s exhaustion after stopping the train. It helps that it is played with little dialogue. The button of the little kids handing Peter his mask is a nice touch.
Aside from the direction, Spider-Man 2 is easily the best-written of the live-action Spider-Man films.
The focus on Peter’s inner conflict is solid as a rock - the movie is simple and interweaves the various subplots without feeling bloated. In contrast to most sequels, Spider-Man 2 is about the same runtime as its predecessor.
Watching the first two Raimi movies back to back really clarified why they have never really been my cup of tea.
While the stories work, they feel too simple - like animated episodes. There was a lack of specificity to it - in terms of performance, presentation and even world-building.
However, these are not weaknesses - the best thing about the Raimi movies is how simple and distilled they are. And Spider-Man 2 is the best example of that simplicity.
If you are new to this blog, I also co-host a podcast on James Bond, The James Bond Cocktail Hour.
You can subscribe on iTunes, or wherever you get your podcasts.
No comments:
Post a Comment