Green Goblin: "What's my motivation?"

Rating: 7/10 (9 May 2002)

The first half of "Spider-Man" really is perfect. It's everything you could hope for in a comic book movie. It's lighthearted, yet dramatic, as well as exciting. It is the reason to go see it.
The film also has problems that any this huge, with this much at stake, is likely to have. Some are merely inconsistencies with the comic, which I can't argue with. For one, Peter fires the webbing out of his wrists, which he never did in the comic. In the comic, he fits his costume with web-shooters that fire super strong webbing. But having the webs fire from his own wrists in the film creates some nice comic moments and is more economical, story-wise, than having manufactured web shooters. So this is easily excused.
In true comic-book fashion, the hero and the villain are created nearly simultaneously, in completely unrelated events. I was able to shun this aside as well. That's just a Hollywood coincidence and is consistent with comic storytelling.
Another aspect of the comic that the film misses is Spider-Man's sarcastic sense of humor. In the comic, in even the most dire situations, Spider-Man always found some wise-crack, which was sometimes just to hide his own fear. It's like trash talk, of the NBA variety. This is one of the most appealing and unique aspects about the Spider-Man character and the film barely touches on it.
The film runs into real problems, though, with the Green Goblin (and I don't mean the problems he causes Spider-Man). Norman Osborn's mental breakdown, triggered by his business failings, is well represented by Willem Dafoe. The performance is great, but it doesn't look like he was allowed to have any fun, the way Jack Nicholson was as the Joker, Michelle Pfiefer as Cat Woman, and Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor. Even Ian McKellen as Magneto (in "X-Men") looked like he savored every moment of that role. But the Goblin of "Spider-Man" is just an extreme version of every character Dafoe's ever played (I had this flashback of "Shadow of the Vampire" when Osborn gasps upon seeing the blood on Peter's arm in the Thanksgiving scene). There's nothing surprising about the character, nor any moments that let you know the film isn't taking itself too seriously. A film like this needs to show that it is aware of its own triviality, something usually done through the villain. Sam Raimi doesn't get this.
That isn't even the film's biggest flaw. This flaw could have been fixed with one or two small changes and would have made a huge difference. The Goblin's motivation for wanting to kill Spider Man-what is it? The film never gives a convincing one. Even a comic book movie needs this. For some reason, writer David Koepp has the Goblin decide that Spider-Man can't be beat (he's "virtually invincible"), so he asks the hero to join him to do what, exactly? When Spider-Man refuses, the Goblin gets angry and tries to kill him. He goes after his family and friends just to bait him. This concept is just, well, dumb. For one thing, the whole appeal of the Spider-Man character as a superhero is that he IS vulnerable. He does have superhuman strength, but bullets can hurt him. He can be killed by things that would kill normal people, like bullets and fire. All he has going for him is his spider-sense, his strength, his agility.
Another point: this vendetta of the Goblin's isn't even consistent with the Norman Osborn character Koepp had built up to that point. Osborn is a guy who blames other people, homicidally, for his own failings. He doesn't get the DOD contract and kills the men who said no to him. Spider-Man saying no didn't make any difference one way or the other. It didn't cause any failing on Osborn's part. Now, if Spider-Man had caused the Goblin to fail in some way, or stood in his way and created the perception that it was Spider-Man's fault, well, that would have been a different story. As it is, though, this lack of motivation leaves a huge hole through the middle of the movie. At least for me.
Grade: B-