Director Report Card: Sam Raimi (2002)

10. Spider-Man

A movie based off of Marvel Comics' most popular and beloved character had been in one stage of development or another since 1985. Names like Roger Corman, Tobe Hooper, and Joseph Zito had come and gone. James Cameron came the closest to making a “Spider-Man” movie in the mid-nineties. Misguided scripts and legal litigation would end that project and Spider-Man wouldn't truly swing onto the big screen until 2002. Sam Raimi, who had been trying to make a proper comic book superhero movie for years, would beat out hotter candidates – David Fincher, Chris Columbus, Jan de Bont – with his sheer enthusiasm for the character. Raimi's “Spider-Man” would, of course, be a record-shattering success and truly signify that the Age of the Superhero Movie had begun. Now, seventeen years later, some folks like to claim Raimi's “Spider-Man” movie actually isn't good. I'll be the judge of that.

Everyone knows the story of Peter Parker: Spider-Man. Impressively, Raimi's film – directing a script that four or five different people worked on, though sole credit went to David Koepp – boils forty years of comic history down to its most essential elements. We see nerdy Peter Parker fall in love with girl-next-door Mary Jane Watson, struggle with sad little rich boy best friend Harry Osborn, and get bitten by a special spider. Initially using his newfound powers for financial gain, he learns the hard way that great power comes with great responsibility when his beloved Uncle Ben is killed by a thief he let get away. Becoming Spider-Man, he soon comes into conflict with mad, technology-driven villain the Green Goblin... Who is actually Norman Osborn, Harry's millionaire super-scientist dad. The script is almost impressively episodic, in the way it tracks from iconic comic book moment to the next.

The main criticism people have against Raimi's first “Spider-Man” movie is that it's corny. This is undeniably true. Its themes, of a wholesome hero, the girl next door, a villain driven mad, are simple and broad. Spider-Man rescues a baby, a floundering military contractor puts on a parade, and The dialogue is often histrionic, as if it all could be delivered inside comic book thought bubbles. The bad guy does stuff like track down the hero's aunt just to menace her melodramatically, not actually kill her. Just as the story is starting to sag a bit, the Goblin shows up and almost destroys the Daily Bugle office. He hisses the word “Sleeeep!” just as he's spraying Spider-Man with sleeping gas. The film is seemingly of an older time in other ways too. The school bully is a stereotypical jock and it’s heroic when Peter beats the shit out of him. The movie does not blink at Peter insulting a pro-wrestler by suggesting he’s gay. Sure, there's stuff about “Spider-Man” that hasn't aged the best.

Chief among the film's more antiquated features is its special effects. Despite many attempts to do so, a “Spider-Man” movie probably wasn’t possible before the advent of CGI. And Raimi uses a lot of it. When Peter is first testing out his powers, leaping across rooftops, he turns into a clearly artificial computer-generated puppet. A later scene shoves the CGI right in our face as Parker, seeking revenge on Uncle Ben’s killer, crawls up walls and swings across town. These are only the most obvious examples. Sure, the seams show, even then and more-so after nearly two decades of advancements. Yet Raimi and his team used this tool to bring iconic, dynamic comic book-style poses to life, which makes up for a lot. If something is meant to look stylized, it’s hard to complain about it looking fake.

In fact, I would argue that the movie’s campy streak is totally intentional and even a benefit. Raimi isn’t adapting the modern day “Spider-Man” stories. His plot is based off a story line from the mid-sixties. Accordingly, “Spider-Man” is driven by a sense of gee-whiz, Silver Age optimism. Even though Spider-Man is technically a vigilante, and the Daily Bugle attempts to villainize him, most New Yorkers love the guy. In one scene, a cop threatens to arrest him but changes his mind so Spidey can rescue that baby. Even though Peter is haunted by the death of his uncle, as Spider-Man, he frequently seems upbeat. He whoops with joy when swinging through the air, cracks cheesy quips, and leaves notes after tying up bad guys. He is truly a Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man. So even if there’s death and murder in the story, and Mary Jane is clearly threatened with rape by a gang of guys, “Spider-Man” is usually characterized by a sense of warm nostalgia. Much like Richard Donner’s “Superman,” it seemingly takes place in a simpler past that never truly existed.

The film glows with that warmth, most scenes utilizing a sunny color palette of bronze and sandy Earth-tones. (With the darker scenes using a cooler, comic book-y jet black.) New York has never looked cleaner or more inviting on-screen. And there’s good reason for that. “Spider-Man” was made during that brief period of post-9/11 patriotism, when Americans united to support each other, when the President decried Islamophobia. Before that president launched us into a nakedly imperialistic war, before the right-wing media weaponized that sense of community. The shadow of 9/11 lingered over “Spider-Man’s” production, forcing last minute recalls of teaser trailers and posters. The film resolved this by depicting New York as America’s City, a love for the architecture and people who live there apparent in every minute. A key moment has New Yorkers coming together to help Spidey stop the Green Goblin’s latest plan. In 2002, it took me out of the film. In 2019, it’s another element of the film’s optimistic world-view. Manhattanites never loved each other this way, not even after 9/11. But “Spider-Man” takes place in a less cynical fantasy world. That upbeat attitude was a healing balm the country desperately needed after September 11th and, I’d argue, a big reason why the film became such a hit.

Sam Raimi’s visual style was a little more muted by 2001. Yet he certainly brings some of that “Darkman” energy to “Spider-Man.” The Raimian hyper-kinetic montages are present and accounted for. Mostly during scenes when Peter is lost in thought, images of M.J. and cars filtering through his head as the creative process behind designing his costume takes place right before our eyes. This same fast-paced dynamism characterizes montage of Spider-Man swinging around the city, fighting crime, and appearing on newspaper covers. While these montages are the main example of Raimi’s style, there are certainly other whipping camera movements. Peter’s Spider Sense isolating every movement in a room, or Spider-Man leaping around flying blades, struck me in 2002 as more post-“Matrix” bullet time gimmickry. Now, I clearly see it as a manifestation of Raimi’s P.O.V. shot obsession. It’s not as wacky or wild as “Evil Dead” but it’s still pretty cool.

In many ways, it must seem like Sam Raimi had been making comic book movies his entire life. That visual language has always informed his style. While the camera certainly swings through the air with Spider-Man on more than one occasion, the film seems disappointingly flat in some regards. The action scenes are often a bit awkward. Sure, we get cool shots of the Green Goblin’s fists or knees lashing into the camera. Yet, too often, the film just has its costumed characters fly vertically through the air, knocked back by one blow or another. Spider-Man’s leaping and punching comes off as embarrassingly acrobatic at times. “The Matrix” definitely did influence the film’s action beats, as this movie was made during that period when all Hollywood action movies had to awkwardly ape Hong Kong action films in the most listless way possible. Apparently Norman Osborn also became a high-kicking martial artist when he became the Green Goblin. The action scenes are so choppy at times that, during the climatic battle, the Goblin pulls a high-tech spear seemingly out of nowhere. Is this Raimi’s fault or had Hollywood just not figured out how to shoot superhero fight scenes yet? It’s hard to say, though I’m betting on the latter, as the first “X-Men” movie had a similar problem.

A big thrill of these early superhero movies was just seeing these iconic characters brought to life on-screen. While other, and arguably better Spider-Man suits, have appeared in movies since, I still think this film did an excellent job designing Spidey. The raised, metallic webbing gives it a sharp, modern look. More importantly, it looks like Spider-Man, adapting the general design and colors of its comic book counterpart, something Hollywood was still struggling with at the time. The general consensus is that the movie did a good job with Spider-Man. But what about the Green Goblin? A more comic accurate Goblin design was considered early in development but ultimately discarded for what fans derisively call the Power Rangers helmet. Sure, it could’ve been better. Going with a solely green and amber look, with none of the character’s traditional purple highlights, was an odd choice. But I kind of like the Green Goblin helmet, which matches the comic’s silhouette and is permanently fixed in a demonic snarl. The decision to let Willem DaFoe’s eyes and mouth be partially visible wasn’t a bad one either, allowing for some expressiveness. If nothing else, the Goblin Glider and Pumpkin Bombs look fantastic.

As with any film that recounts Spider-Man’s origin, Uncle Ben’s iconic line about great power and great responsibility is trotted out here. Thematically, the film does touch on this, contrasting Peter’s responsible use of his power with Norman Osborn using his ability for tyrannical, petty needs. However, that’s really not what “Spider-Man” is about. This is a film about fathers and sons. Peter is an orphan but Uncle Ben is still his father figure, wise and self-sacrificing. Peter wanting to live up to that example is what drives him. Yet Norman Osborn is eager to spiritually adopt the boy. He sees himself in the bright, inventive Peter... And not so much in Harry, his actual son, who has always struggled in his dad’s shadow. This extends to their superhero lives, when the Green Goblin offers to take Spider-Man under his (glider) wing. He becomes a perverse opposite of Uncle Ben, offering an abuse of power. When that fails, he instead seeks to teach Peter/Spider-Man a “lesson” about heroics. He feels personally slighted when he discovers Peter is Spider-Man, feeling betrayed by a boy he thought was like him. Never mind that his actual son is going through a crisis... Peter and Harry are inevitably sent on a collision course in the final scene, mirroring themes of brotherly rivalry seen in Raimi’s “A Simple Plan.”

Now that we know about his days in the Pussy Posse or his underground poker games, it’s harder to buy Tobey Maguire as a wholesome leading man. Yet, in every other way, Maguire was the perfect Peter Parker for this “Spider-Man.” Bright-eyed and baby-faced, Maguire’s Peter responses to almost everything with hopefulness. He makes the corny one-liners — they are so corny — sound totally natural. Of course, that’s what a dork like Peter Parker, who loves his aunt and has been smitten with the literal girl next door his whole life, thinks bad-ass battle banter sounds like. That complete sincerity imbues Maguire’s heroic moments, like his final confrontation with the Goblin, with an effective power. If Raimi’s “Spider-Man” is an distillation of Silver Age Marvel adventures, Maguire makes every correct decision.

As with any time an iconic supervillain is cast in these movies, a number of high-profile stars were considered to play the Green Goblin. When John Malkovich and Nicolas Cage — can you imagine how demented that would’ve been? — passed, Willem DaFoe won the part. The split personality of the character allows DaFoe to access two styles of acting. As the paternal if calculating Norman, he balances a determination to perfect his work with occasional glimpses of warmth in Peter’s direction. As the Green Goblin, he cackles wildly, clearly enjoying every over-the-top act of villainy he performs. DaFoe is certainly talented at twisting his face into disturbingly vivid goblin scowls. I do wish the moments when these two aspects intersected, when Osborn is confronted by the Goblin persona, were a little less melodramatic.

The film opens with some narration from Peter, assuring us that this is a story that begins with a girl... And though Spider-Man has had a succession of notable love interests over the years, the film went with his most iconic, Mary Jane Watson. The romance honestly works so much better than these subplots usually do in superhero flicks. Though Mary Jane seems mostly oblivious to Peter in early scenes, at the science lab for example, the two slowly open up to each other over the course of the film. Such as a touching scene outside their houses, a flirty meet-cute on the streets of New York, and a touching moment where he reveals how much she meets to him, in a round about way. Kristen Dunst perfectly captures the girl-next-door, a stunning beauty that seems flighty and superficial at times but hides a pained heart, an aching vulnerability. Her charm and beauty alone is what makes that notorious kiss scene genuinely sexy, despite it being super weird and uncomfortable on the surface.

In fact, “Spider-Man's” entire cast is pretty much perfect. J.K. Simmons, reuniting with Raimi for the third time, is probably among the most pitch perfect casting in any comic book movie. Simmons plays J. Jonah Jameson exactly as he exists on the page: Extremely loud and opinionated, weirdly prejudiced against Spider-Man, yet totally endearing due to his outrageously dry sense of humor and unshakable principals. Cliff Robertson and Rosemary Harris are also the platonic ideals of Uncle Ben and Aunt May, as they existed in the silver age Spidey comics. Robertson is totally believable as a wholesome figure of lived-in knowledge while Harris has a similarly wise and perceptive attitude as the guiding light in Peter's life. And, yes, even James Franco is fantastically cast as Harry Osborn, certainly believable as a popular rich boy but deeply wounded by the way his father has treated. (And hats off to Bruce Campbell, returning to a Raimi movie for the first time in a while, amusingly smarmy as the wrestler ring announcer.)

There's not much about 2002's “Spider-Man” I don't find endearing in some way but one moment really bugs me... And it's practically the end of the film. After the climatic battle between hero and villain, when Norman Osborn seals his own fate, Spider-Man carries his corpse to his home. (Imagine that comic panel, Spider-Man swinging a half-naked dead body across New York City.) Instead of discreetly leaving the body or explaining to Harry what's happened, he leaves suddenly and gives Harry Osborn a vendetta against him for the rest of his life. At Norman's funeral, M.J. confesses her feelings for Peter. And instead of letting her down easy, he basically leaves her in a lurch. Both of these moments are awkward set-ups for a sequel that inject an unsightly dose of contrived melodrama into a superhero story that previously flowed in the smoothest, most satisfying way.

Ultimately, there's not much to complain about. When I saw “Spider-Man” in theaters as a 14 year old kid – twice! – it filled me with an effervescent kind of joy. Nearly two decades later, it somehow still makes me feel that. The film has unquestionably aged, made less sophisticated by the seventeen years of superhero cinema that has followed. (And the less said about that Nickelback theme song, the better...) Yet the film is still breathlessly entertaining with so many elements about it that work seamlessly. It's entirely possible that nostalgia plays a part in me loving this movie so much. So be it. “Spider-Man” is a movie awash in nostalgia anyway, so it's only fair. Sam Raimi's transformation into a blockbuster maker couldn't have gone smoother and summer movie season would never be the same again. [Grade: A]