Skip to main content

She worshipped that pig. And now she's become him.

The Girl in the Spider’s Web
(2018)

(SPOILERS) Choosing to make The Girl in the Spider’s Web following the failure of the David Fincher film – well, not a failure per se, but like Blade Runner 2049, it simply cost far too much to justify its inevitably limited returns – was a very bizarre decision on MGM’s part. A decision to reboot, with a different cast, having no frame of reference for the rest of the trilogy unless you checked out the Swedish movies (or read the books, but who does that?); someone actually thought this would possibly do well? Evidently the same execs churning out desperately flailing remakes based on their back catalogue of IPs (Ben-Hur, The Magnificent Seven, Death Wish, Tomb Raider); occasionally there’s creative flair amid the dross (Creed, A Star is Born), but otherwise, it’s the most transparently creatively bankrupt studio there is.

Which makes it a minor miracle that Spider’s Web is an at least serviceable thriller. Despite being based on a post-Steig Larson cash-in-for-the-estate novel (I still haven’t checked out the sixth Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy for similar reasons), and despite inevitably making it all about the past of the Lisbeth Salander again via an elaborate re-envisioning of her sister (or is it? Who knows what Larson’s intentions were) that only serves to diminish the otherwise agreeably preposterous plot.

My knee-jerk reaction to the news that Doug Liman was consulting Fede Alvarez regarding the best way to salvage the (eventually) forthcoming Chaos Walking via some extensive reshoots was “Why would you want to go to him?” He isn’t, after all, the most salubrious of filmmakers (to the extent that I have no wish to see his Evil Dead remake, while Don’t Breathe stands as a slick but distasteful exploitation flick). There’s plenty of implicit nastiness in this movie, the most obviously Alvarez-like – based on past form – being a noseless victim of the major henchman. The rubber vacuum device was also an addition (Alavarez has a screenplay credit, as does Steven Knight), so make of that what you will. He does, though, undeniably, know his way around a suspense sequence,

Alvarez is probably, well not wasting his time on horror since they make a lot of dough, but certainly not making the most of his talents. On this evidence, he’s an obviously talented action director, able to handle scale and spectacle outside of more intimate chills. There are several sterling chase sequences, and if you, like me, spent most of the movie wondering why LaKeith Stanfield wanted his part, wait until you get to the finale where he takes down most of the bad guys with a sniper’s rifle that fires through walls (it’s a great sequence, executed by Alvarez with tremendous flair).

On the other hand, there’s a very silly airport episode that suggests most of Salander’s tech skills are the equivalent of a magic wand (or sonic screwdriver). More damagingly, everything involving her crimson-clad sister (Sylvia Hoeks, of the aforementioned Blade Runner 2049) is a bust. Aside from a prologue in which Lisbeth leaves her to her predatory father (“Why did you help everyone but me?” asks Camilla, and the answer is “Because your formative experiences were retconned for this sequel, of course”), she has no function other than to be a big bad reveal (not so much, as her spectre is signposted with clumsy ruthlessness throughout) incorporating the all-important origins component that is sadly essential to modern fiction’s conceptual universes.

Elsewhere in the mix, there’s a genius kid (Christopher Convery) who never really takes on much importance, since he’s as much of a MacGuffin as the actual MacGuffin, and his dad, played by Stephen Merchant, a better actor than Ricky Gervais, but that isn’t really an endorsement. Oh, and Vicky Krieps, so great in Phantom Thread, has been seriously short changed as Blmokvist’s publisher. He (Sverir Gudnason) is at least in a more fittingly subordinate role compared to the Daniel Craig incarnation. As for Claire Foy, I come from a place of being mildly irritated that Rooney Mara didn’t get another shot, but Foy’s pretty good, and either she or (probably not) Alvarez ensures the voyeuristic sensibilities of the Fincher version are largely absent.

So yeah, The Girl in the Spider’s Web is actually surprisingly okay. It drops out of gear, ironically, as soon as Camilla is properly introduced, but then stages a decent recovery. It has no business being even okay, though, as it’s very existence is the kind of Hollywood franchise botch that should have been foreseen way before $40m was sunk into it.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

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.