With great casting comes…a great movie!
Well, I don’t know that the original Spider-Man is a “great” movie, but it’s a good movie, accomplishing what it sets out to do: it tells the origin story of Spider-Man in an entertaining fashion, while also providing a sufficiently creepy villain for our hero to vanquish.
It’s only been a few months since the 2012 Spider-Man re-boot, so it’s impossible not to draw comparisons. The re-boot was okay, but the question lingers…why? Why did we need a re-boot? It’s only been ten years. Did the creators of the re-boot not have enough confidence in the movie-going public’s ability to remember the Spider-Man origin story after such a short a time?
Or, perhaps…did the makers of the re-boot not have enough faith in their action-adventure story to let it stand on its own? Yes, we all love a good origin story, but…c’mon already! Let’s get on with it!
But I’m really getting off track. I mean to say a word or two about the original Spider-Man, and of course the first word I’ve already said is “great casting”—which is actually two words, but this, 
along with the strength of the origin story, is what makes this movie still feel fresh, even ten years later.
We start with Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, and for me, this works. Tobey Maguire naturally has that nerdy look that absolutely screams Peter Parker. I believed he was a teenager, and I believed he was Peter Parker. For the re-boot, Andrew Garfield was too tall, too old (29) and too good-looking to be Parker. Nowadays, it’s cool to be a nerd. Garfield looks like one of the “cool” 
nerds—David Copperfield after his “make-over,” not before. But Tobey Maguire looks like an honest to goodness NERD.
Besides which, I had also seen Andrew Garfield on a talk show and discovered he’s actually British, and somehow, I couldn’t get that out of my mind while watching the re-boot. On this talk show, he also mentioned having a “man crush” on some actor, and that was something else I couldn’t get out of my mind, watching him pretend to be Peter Parker. I think maybe sometimes it’s best not to know too much about the actors before you go to see a movie. It kind of eats away at the magic.
But Tobey Maguire’s performance is absolute magic, hitting just the right high notes between the nerdiness of Parker and the cockiness of Spider-Man. His performance is the web that holds it all together.
VILLAINOUS!
Next big casting success is Willem Dafoe as the screw-loose Norman Osborn. There’s something about Dafoe’s look that seems slightly sinister and…not quite right. He’s too sharp and angular almost to be a real person. In some ways, he’s actually scarier as Norman Osborn than he is when he puts on the mask of the Green Goblin. As for the mask, that’s one of few things that just doesn’t work for me. It’s too cartoonish, 
too much like a costume, and entirely too immobile. The only time the mask works is when you can see Dafoe’s crazy eyes peering out. I get more evil vibes from the menacing stance of Osborne’s body on the glider than from the Green Goblin’s Halloweenish mask.
I also think the Goblin is a better villain than the Lizard from the re-boot. When Rhys Ifans is portraying Dr. Connors, it’s all good, but once he becomes the Lizard, I feel like we’re totally in Tokyo movie-monster land. I almost expect the characters to start talking in Japanese, with English sub-titles! The Lizard is powerful, but he doesn’t project EVIL to the same extent that the Goblin does. The split-personality motif, with the Goblin taunting Osborn in the vast loneliness of his palatial home is, in my mind, truly creepy.
I read in Wikipedia that comics journalist and historian Mike Conroy has noted that “Of all the costumed villains who’ve plagued Spider-Man over the years, the most flat-out unhinged and terrifying of them all is the Green Goblin.” Yes! That’s it! Unhinged. Works for me.
It also takes no stretch of the imagination to believe Cliff Robertson as Uncle Ben and Rosemary Harris as Aunt May. Russ has often commented that it doesn’t make sense that a teenage boy would have an octogenarian aunt and uncle, and I agree. However, this quibble is with Stan and Larry, not director Sam Raimi. I respect his decision to stick to
canon and portray Aunt May and Uncle Ben exactly as they appear in the original comics. With that in mind, the actors are simply perfect in the roles.
Now, I have only read a few Spider-Man comics so far, and I have not yet met Mary Jane or Gwen, so I can’t comment on which actress does a better job with their role (Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane, or Emma Stone as Gwen). However, I can say I love the hard-edged yet vulnerable demeanor of Mary Jane’s character. I also love her red, red hair!
My favorite bit of casting however is J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson. What a hoot! He pulls his performance not only from the Jameson character in the comics, but also from every newspaper editor we’ve ever seen in film or TV. Yeah, okay: predictable, stereotypical…but oh, so amusing! In my book, dead-on fun and fantastic!
THE CLASSIC ORIGIN STORY
But of course, in addition to great casting, the origin story is such a classic, it tells itself. I’m a big fan of canon, and they really stick with it here; they just speed it up a bit, so we get all the best elements of 40 years of canon in about two hours.
In the comics, it seems we have to wait half of forever for Peter to actually meet Mary Jane, or have any kind of romantic life at all. Now, she’s the girl next door. I also like seeing socially inept Peter have a friend in Harry Osborn (James Franco, a fantastic actor who doesn’t have a whole lot to work with here, but is a pleasure to gander upon). I haven’t read far enough yet in the comics to meet either of these characters, but their inclusion helps round out Peter as a three-dimensional character.
I also like how the film combines the elements of canon in a way that is actually better than the original. For instance, it makes so much sense that as a result of the infamous spider bite, our hero shoots webs from 
his wrists and doesn’t have to mess around with gooey glue. First of all, of course, no glue could actually be THAT strong (no matter what Billy Mays told you). But more importantly…why not have spider webs shoot out of Peter’s wrists? The spider bite makes him super-strong, super-agile, able to scale buildings with his feet and hands. He has all the other attributes of a spider, why not webbing as well?
I wonder if in the 1960’s Stan and Jack were prudishly reluctant to have their superhero biologically shoot a sticky substance from his body? Or maybe Elmer’s Glue had an advertising contract with Marvel Comics, and there were high hopes that little boys would rush down to the five-and-dime to buy glue or paste in an attempt to emulate their favorite teenaged superhero? Personally, I’m going with the Elmer’s sponsorship theory. I mean…how else can you account for Paste-Pot Pete?
THE END
But now I’m really getting off-track. One more thing I feel compelled to say: This version of Spider-Man is one of those rare movies where I enjoyed the film all the way through, but then I’m utterly disappointed in the ending. When I first saw this movie ten years ago, the ending baffled and annoyed me. I had not yet been exposed to enough superhero mythology to understand that the superhero must selflessly do everything he can to protect the people he loves, even if it means giving up the dreams he holds most dear. I had not yet heard the saying “With great power, comes great responsibility.” Now, even with my ever-so-slight background in Marvel comics, I understand that Peter, from a position of love, must reject Mary Jane in his desire to keep her safe.
But still, I’m confused. Who is it that has to avoid letting villains know his Achilles Heel? Spidey…or Peter? Obviously Spider-Man cannot have close personal relationships…but why can’t Peter? At the end of this movie, the only person who discovered Peter’s secret identity is now dead. So where’s the problem? What villain is going to come after those most beloved by nerdy Peter Parker? I mean, really…who cares?
But I guess Peter’s preparing for the day when Spider-Man’s true identity may once again be accidentally revealed. So, he’s acting in the present moment against something that might happen in the future, being extremely cautious, conscientious, and (dare I say it?) RESPONSIBLE.
Well, I guess that’s how we like our Spider-Man. But maybe more importantly, from a storytelling point of view, the selfless, lonely path of the hero creates a tremendous amount of pathos and drama.
At least until we get to the next Spider-Man movie, when Mary Jane discovers Peter’s secret identity. Of course at that point there’ll be new issues to deal with. But one thing at a time! With this first Spider-Man movie, we’ve had a good origin story (one that, in my opinion, did not need to be retold). More importantly, though, the critical and financial success of this movie, coming close on the heels of 2000’s sensational X-Men, continued to hold open the floodgates for all the other Marvel superheroes to burst through and demand their time on the silver screen.
As Peter Parker finds renewed self-confidence in his Spider-Man persona, Marvel Entertainment continues to be awakened and revived, so that it can grow into the entertainment giant that will eventually give us epics like the recent Thor, Iron Man and Avengers.
