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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

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.

James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.

Moonraker (1979) Depending upon your disposition, and quite possibly age, Moonraker is either the Bond film that finally jumped the shark or the one that is most gloriously redolent of Roger Moore’s knowing take on the character. Many Bond aficionados will no doubt utter its name with thinly disguised contempt, just as they will extol with gravity how Timothy Dalton represented a masterful return to the core values of the series. If you regard For Your Eyes Only as a refreshing return to basics after the excesses of the previous two entries, and particularly the space opera grandstanding of this one, it’s probably fair to say you don’t much like Roger Moore’s take on Bond.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.