The Girl in the Spider's Web: A New Dragon Tattoo Story (2018) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
94 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Still good, just not as good as...
finraziel27 October 2018
I feel the low rating currently (5.7) is probably because people are disappointed because it can't live up to its predecessor. And it's true, it can't... but in its own right it's still a good movie. Not excellent, but good. The story is okay, the action is solid, and Lisbeth is still badass. If you have the previous movie sitting in a shrine in your house somewhere and you worship it before you go to bed... skip this movie. If you just want an enjoyable if not terribly memorable action thriller, then go ahead and have fun.
91 out of 115 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Hollywood desperstion
allantee507 November 2018
The Milllenium trilogy by Stieg Larsson was adapted into 3 superb movies, in Swedish! all with Naomi Rapace! Hollywood remade the Dragon Tattoo with Daniel Craig, then copped out on the Follow up stories, deciding to jump to book 4 written by David Largercrantz. Does it work? Not really, unless you're comfortable with the same old "go for the maximum return" angle. Hollywood has to do that! Unfortunately their desire to create a female Bond like character is the result. They've made it all so implausible!
51 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Just a standard action movie...
tommypeters26 October 2018
While David Lagercrantz did a decent job of preserving the "Milennium feel" in the book, this movie totally lost that. Only the first Swedish movie managed to give the feel that nothing important was left out from the book, here intentionally most of the book was left out to give room for car chases and fights. The result is a banal action movie where all persons are two-dimensional.
60 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
How did I hate this movie? Let me count the ways.
peterwcohen-300-9472005 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
1) Fantasy computer program that can only be transferred but not copied. 2) Fantasy computer program that can access and launch any nuclear weapons on Earth, regardless of country. 3) Incomprehensible motive for Swedish security service for commissioning theft of fantasy computer program. 4) Big neon flashing obviousness that the Swedish security police lady is in on it. 5) Secret criminal society in Stockholm that cuts off people's faces, and Lisbeth doesn't know about them. 6) Magical superheroes and supervillains using magical technology with lightning speed. 7) Production choices to put obvious information front and center so that audience of 10-year olds have no problem instantly comprehending. This starts with radio broadcast montage about Lisbeth doing vigilante attacks on men, and continues with obvious explication popping up on computer screens when characters are doing magically instantaneous research. 8) Police cars arriving at crime scenes choreographed to look like dancers entering the stage in Swan Lake. 9) NSA magical computer spy is a famous former hacker. 10) NSA guy gets bumped into in the nightclub, and everyone in the world except for him knows that something was lifted/planted on him. 11) Guy who created insane fantasy program to launch nuclear weapons put the passwords into the possession of his magical supercomputer-like 10-year old son. 12) For some unknown reason, villains know that little boy is key to accessing fantasy program. 13) Are security police goons all wearing the same tie, like it's a uniform? 14) Lisbeth survives gigantic explosion by outrunning flames to jump into bath. 15) When NSA guy goes to scene of exploded Lisbeth apartment, obvious bits and pieces of clues are there on the floor for him to find and audience to see, like a picture of him and Lisbeth's ID, and Swedish investigators just left that stuff behind for what reason who can comprehend, other than to serve up a steaming hot pile of explication for an audience of 10-year olds. 16) Lisbeth lets boy keep his phone, inexplicably, except so that the otherwise magically genius child can answer a call that looks like it's coming from his dead daddy and reveal his location to baddies. 17) Scene where Lisbeth is answering knock on door intercut with NSA guy going to place where he traced her call to, but surprise! they're in two different places. Never seen that trick before (more than 100 times). 18) Lisbeth steals a Ferrari in matte black paint color because she likes to be low-key.

That's all I can think of at the moment. But you get the idea.
99 out of 132 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
hansen-birthe26 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
As a Swede I'm disappointed and coming out of the movie my head is full of why's

1. Michael Blomkvist, the actor who plays him is really a good Swedish actor! But he looks even younger then Lisbeth which for me who has read the books makes no sense. And what was the purpose of his character?! He was just a shadow/hang around. And his lover Erika Berger they could have totally left her out.

2. The villain/the sister, you could really tell that this wasn't written by Stieg Larsson, because the plot with the sister, the father living in that spooky house!? And knowing about Lisbeth caracter that she didn't go back and help her sister? And also with the knowledge gained from reading the other books, the hole thing with the Swedish Security Police doing business with the criminals and the sister who hated the father!,

3. Lisbeth, they turned her into some kind of super hero with this magical powers and strengths....?

What would David Fincher have done? Probably something totally different but probably better
79 out of 104 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Are you Lisbeth Salander the... Action hero?
paulijcalderon29 October 2018
I'm gonna sound biased, but the truth is that I am. David Fincher come back! I miss his take of "Millennium", which was brilliantly engaging. But we gotta accept the fact that the whole trilogy couldn't be adapted because of the first film not being financially successful enough. The fourth book was also the first in the series to not be written by Stieg Larsson, but instead by David Lagercrantz. Must have been a daunting task following in the footsteps of the world-wide bestsellers. I remember that my dad recognised him in a store once. So he went up to Lagercrantz, said hello and then left him in peace. My dad said he didn't wanna say anything else because he was being criticised and under pressure for taking over the series. That's when I first heard about it - and yes, I was sceptic as well. The trailers had me worried. The direction was gonna be faster, more action oriented and appeal to an even wider audience. I get that, sure. But the brilliance of "Dragon Tattoo" is its investigate dark mystery. Look how the story is told and how the audience is always interested in finding the answers to the questions. Was "Spider's Web" any good? Well... Better than I expected.

Fede Alvarez is not a bad director choice. I underestimated him. He knows how to get the stylish imagery. There's a good eye here since many creative ideas are being used for the shots. It gets points for that. He uses some shaky cam in the intense scenes. Thankfully there's a good balance of steady and hand-held camera use. I've seen Claire Foy getting much work recently. My bets where that she would portray Lisbeth Salander being hysterical or explosive. I was wrong because she lands a solid performance. Subtle when she needs to be, and even showing the emotion that's underneath Lisbeth's tough exterior. Surprisingly she's even funny. Sverrir Gudnason shows a warm interpretation of Mikael Blomkvist. He comes across as a friendly person who's presence lightens the mood. Not a bad take either. I would in all honesty have been ecstatic if Rooney Mara and Daniel Craig had returned. Then again Fede Alvarez felt he wouldn't had done 50% of his job if he took Fincher's cast. I don't really agree, but I understand what he means. The first act of the film was pretty alright. The look, the pacing and the introduction of the story worked. You can tell by the beginning that the style direction will be something else: An action-thriller. Salander has become a vigilante. That's something I feel kind of "Eh.." about. Clearly not the original intention. If you look at it as a James Bond type film, you'll enjoy it quite a lot. Don't go in expecting a moody crime mystery. That's not what you'll get. The story is not as isolated but more expanded involving Nato or Swedish Special Forces and people running after computer programs. Seemed more far-fetched than what it needed to be.

The experience of watching "Spider's Web" was enjoyable. You can have fun with the action and your suspenseful scenes. As a typical action movie, it does the job. The villain in the piece stood out to me. Sylvia Hoeks (who we saw in "Blade Runner 2049") delivers an eerie enemy for Salander. I get the feeling she's not gonna get enough credit for this role since her entire character doesn't fit the "supposed" realistic tone. It's a person straight out of a James Bond movie. And there I go again with that comparison, but it's actually got more in common with that now that I think of it. The villain is acted well - The issue is just that she belongs in another film entirely. I went in afraid of what the film would turn out to be, and it wasn't bad. Although it doesn't capture the greatness of "Dragon Tattoo". Stick to the originals for real grittiness. But if you want a fast thrill-ride, then this is decent. Biggest take away: Nice to see Stockholm depicted this nicely in american production again.
38 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Soulless boredom.
eshver868 November 2018
This movie was generic, boring, missing a plot or likeable characters. If you point camera to a desert and film it for 2 hours it will still be more interesting. Even after drinking Red Bull for the last hour I was constantly falling asleep. It's hard for me to mention a movie that was so disappointing this year.
46 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The girl in the boring web
pedroquintaoo8 November 2018
When this reboot/sequel was announced with a new cast, my expectations were really low, however I decided to give a chance, since the director is the same of 2 horror movies that I really loved (Evil Dead and Don't Breathe).

The Girl in the Spider's Web is the opposite of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (I'm referring to the Swedish movie and to the American remake), in the originals we've seen an interesting story full of mystery, well developed characters, two great protagonists and some good twists, unlike this reboot/sequel/whatever.

I tried to like The Girl in the Spider's Web, because I respect Fede Alvarez, but I need to be honest with my opinion about him, he's amazing to work as director in horror movies but not in another different genres. This movie is just awful! The plot is cliche, uninteresting, with some predictable scenes and the worst action sequences I've seen in a movie with a "big" budget (seriously, even my grandmother without any knowledge about cinema could film better those fight scenes of Lisbeth fighting the bad guys in some bathrooms). The cast is so weak, Claire Foy is a good actress and she tries to do her best with her poorly developed character, but stills the weakest Lisbeth Salander. They're not bad actors, but all of them seem to be in this movie by obligation.

I can't say I'm disappointed because my expectations were already low, I'm just a little sad because it could be an awesome film if Sony had chosen a more appropriate director and better screenwriters.

Rating 3.5/10
24 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Weakest Millennium film, but not a write-off
jwwalrath-227-854878 November 2018
After the American "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" did just okay at the box office, I'm guessing that the studio got worried about how they'd handle another one. This film is clearly made to be more American audience friendly and switched from a semi-down-to-Earth thriller to more traditional action film. This is far from a pure adaptation and the events and characters of the book have become simplified. I feel that this is a poor Millennium movie but as an action movie its not half-bad.

I gave "The Girl in the Spider's Web" this rating based on the intellectual side of me that wants to give others an honest appraisal and recognizes the fault in the script. The movie jumps from plot point to point too quickly without much substance, and Blomkvist, one of the two main characters in the books, is treated as an afterthought here. Though, I must admit I didn't mind at all the change to Lisbeth's past and her dynamic with her sister. I rather felt it worked here.

The fun side of me, would've bumped this up a point. The visual presentation is pretty darn good. Director Fede Alvarez, who did the Evil Dead remake and Don't Breathe has honed his skills in dark action visuals. I found there to be some pretty impressive and at times freaky imagery in this. The fight scenes, though often brief, are well executed. As a whole, the movie looks good in general with a couple really nice shots.

Though Claire Foy does an admirable job as a decent job as Lisbeth Salander, she doesn't compare to Noomi Rapace or Mara Rooney. (Same can be said for the guy who played Blomkvist.) In fairness to Foy, the film pulls more punches as Lisbeth's anti-social/on-the-spectrum traits are toned down and the character feels a bit more average. Props should be give to Sylvia Hoeks as the villain. She is effectively unsettling.

This movie will probably infuriate some fans. It's impure. I would actually recommend this more to casual viewers.
17 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The story is just so, so, of so very predictable!
gam31 November 2018
I was a bit surprised when the name of the English translator rolled in the credits, as it really seems no one involved in this movie read any of the books. They really only needed and used the name recognition of the characters.

The Acting is quite good. If fact almost everything in this movie is above par compared with most Hollywood shoot-em-ups. But the story, if you can really call it a story, is just so banal. We are told the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad and then we have the plot twist. Yawn.
30 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
beautifulblu8329 October 2018
Watch the original versions of these movies in Swedish either with the subtitles, or if you can find them translated to English, you won't be disappointed.

The first US version was disappointing. The second movie is even worse. Please save yourself the trouble and don't go see it.

Read the books before watching the movies.
71 out of 126 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Veritas997 November 2018
Rooney Mara, as Lisbeth, was perfect for this role ( and Daniel Craig as Michael), Claire Foy looks like a scared little cat all the time. Really I couldn't get into the movie atmosphere.
23 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Get stuck
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews3 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
The NSA have a program that can control all nuclear missile launches around the globe. Balder(Merchant, determined), the man who created the program, has decided that it's too much power for any player, regardless of who it is. Of course, stealing it means being hunted down. So he needs a pro. Lisbeth(Foy, not quite up to Rooney Mara's performance but better than Noomi Rapace's excellent one) has been on a real vigilante kick since we last saw her, and agrees to take the job. Blomkvist(Gudnason, making the most of the material which does not do much with the relationship between the two leads, when that has been a strength of both language versions) helps out by doing research. A group of dangerous criminals try to get it from her. Who are they? And what is the real identity of their mysterious leader?

As confusing as it is, this is an adaptation of the fourth book, which was picked by the studio in 2015 when it came out, to be adapted before(or even instead of?) novels two and three. It's also a soft reboot. Basically, the continuity does appear to place this after the events of those, despite many Americans not having watched the Swedish originals, since subtitled foreign films are not for everyone. You are told just enough in this that you can go in without knowing them - heck, this can be the first you watch of the whole franchise. You'll be able to follow it fine. This has interesting elements. Chief among them are the personal history between hero and villain, Salander having to take care of a child who, like her, also has a form(but not the same one) of autism, and the memorable action(I do wish that these scenes were not facilitated by the bad guys making stupid, out of character mistakes) and settings. It does feel more like James Bond or Mission Impossible than "Millennium"(the magazine that this series is named after. I maintain that it should be called "Men Who Hate Women", since that theme is more important to these than that publication). It keeps to a fast pace and is admirably restrained in how little the US plays a role in it.

There is a moderate amount of violence and strong language, as well as a little sexuality and nudity in this. I recommend this to anyone willing to go along with the shift this takes from the other entries. For what it's worth, it seems like the book is closer to those than this is. 7/10
19 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Disappointing when you know the book
joukjesinnema29 October 2018
Supposed to be based on the book, but the only thing it has in common with the book are the names of the characters. Totally different story.
28 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Yes it's not the original, but ...
Unnamed_user12 November 2018
Just like the book, this movie was not made by the people originally responsible - and you notice it. But even though this might not be as good as you would hope when comparing it to the other Lisbet-movies, this is still pretty decent. Even though some of the gimmicks seem pretty unrealistic and the action sometimes suffers from the usual fast-cut nonsense, this is still an enjoyable and well acted movie with some great visuals and interesting developments. If you think this might be for you and you didn't watch the original movies in a while, feel free to give it a look.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Forget the Books, watch it with a hangover
eclipssse31 October 2018
A dull, nicely shot action thriller, if you love the Books (millenium trilogy) dont watch IT. Watch it on a Sunday's with a hangover and pizza.
21 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Sony please just stop.
TheOnlyEvanlarsen9 November 2018
Not going to write a lengthy review. Just here to say that this is NOT Lisbeth Salander. The movie is well directed and Claire Foy is it bad per say but the story of this movie is horrendous. This story is taken from the book NOT written by the original author, written after his death against his families wishes. Boring movie, dumb plot, an a total disrespect for the source characters and creator. Disappointed because you can tell Fede Alvarez was trying to work with the script he had and make something good but there was no saving this script. Sony needs to either let this character be or let Fincher finish his trilogy.
17 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Why didn't they lock in Mara for the trilogy?!
phinfan-316684 November 2018
Changing the main character is moronic, no matter how she does.
32 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Are you not Lisbeth Salander, the righter of wrongs? The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo?
Chalice_Of_Evil8 November 2018
The original book trilogy (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Girl Who Played with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest) were written by Stieg Larsson. There were movie versions of each released in 2009 starring Noomi Rapace. In 2010 there was the Millennium TV mini-series, which was a compilation of the three Swedish films with extended scenes/more stuff added back in. The three movies were re-released on DVD with the extra stuff added back in and these became the 'Extended Versions' of the films. In 2011 came the US remake of the first film. Since then, another author (David Lagercrantz) started writing a new series of books continuing the story on from the third book (as the original author, Stieg Larsson, had passed away). This new movie starring Claire Foy is the first film adaptation of the new series of books. The only 'remake' so far has been the 2011 version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

Sadly, not enough people were first introduced to the character of Lisbeth Salander through Noomi Rapace's unparalleled performance, setting the standard by which all other portrayals should be compared. She did all the hard work/heavy lifting, bringing this character to life onscreen for the first time. Quite unfairly, she never scored an Oscar nomination (which I think she *should* have), nor did these original films receive all the praise that the US remake got. Whether it was the fact that the original film trilogy had subtitles, which people simply couldn't be bothered reading, I don't know, but it's a shame that the big flashy US remake got all the glory the original films/actress to play Salander should have. Those who told fans of the original Swedish films to 'Give the US remake a chance!' and dismissed the recasting of the Lisbeth role now know what it feels like. All the people whose first introduction to the characters of Lisbeth, Mikael, etc was the Fincher version clearly couldn't take their own advice, as a large percentage of them seem to be damning this new film, despite the fact that at least it's based on a book that *hasn't* been filmed previously.

I've seen complaints about Claire Foy as Lisbeth not looking vastly different to how she normally looks, and this is a result of Fincher going overboard with Lisbeth's look in his version, where she was downright alienesque in appearance. No, it *isn't* normal for Lisbeth to walk around with panda eyes/bizarre make-up. If you watched the second film in the original trilogy, you'd see she reserved the theatrical makeup for special occasions. That's what we get here in the opening scene, with Foy's Lisbeth sporting a swath of white paint over her eyes as she helps out a wife with an abusive husband. And the mohawk only appears here and briefly towards the end of the film. Fincher decided to go all 'comic book' with Lisbeth's look and created a 'heightened/hyper-reality', whereas this film is a bit more 'restrained'. No elaborate fights on escalators this time. When Lisbeth fights a guy hand-to-hand here, it's in a small enclosed area, brutal (not flashy), and she doesn't magically win.

We're now seeing the reaction from those who dismissed the part Noomi Rapace played in making the character of Lisbeth Salander as widely recognsied as she is (or who simply don't wish to accept that the role originated with her), because they fell in love with the remake version, when the shoe is on the other foot. The outcry over 'their' version of Lisbeth being replaced is no different to those who didn't wish to see Noomi replaced. Yet they're acting like the US version is the ONLY version. Sorry to break it to you...she's not. Claire Foy gives us a more 'grounded' performance as Lisbeth, as she conveys the character's weaknesses/vulnerabilities, making her feel like more of a 'real' character as opposed to the comic book-like US version. To those complaining about this film's 'action' what if there's action? It's not like the remake was devoid of elaborate action scenes. Plus, here she uses her brains for getting out of sticky situations more often than her fists.

Sverrir Gudnason might not be as recogniseable as Daniel Craig...but that actually works in his favour. Rather than watching a non-action version of James Bond onscreen, we're getting to see a Mikael as he comes across in the books. He's more or less just a regular guy, and I think the actor portrays him believably. We only get short scenes between him and Foy's Salander, but their 'relationship'/friendship feels like it's already established. The remake seemed to put them together in no time and I didn't feel that was 'earned' like in the original. Sylvia Hoeks does a lot with limited screentime also. We don't really meet her Camilla until late into the film (though we're introduced to the sisters as children at the beginning), but she plays the 'coldness' well, showing just hints of vulnerability.

I read the book this movie's based on/adapted from when it was first released and didn't think much of it. The author just wasn't able to capture what made the original three books (which I've read each of multiple times) so great. However, I decided to give the book another try in preparation for seeing this movie. Maybe it's that this movie's such a 'loose' interpretation of the book, with it being quite a bit different, but I found the film version much more interesting. The problem is some people who only know the US remake are ignorant of what came before. They think that version is the ONLY one that exists. This is no doubt what has contributed to the IMDB rating being so (quite unjustly) low. Claire Foy *is* the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo...whether you like it/wish to accept it or not. Hopefully we get to see more of her in the role. Until then, do yourself a favour and watch the original trilogy.
18 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Visually entertaining with its direction but lacking in plot and its darker tone from Dragon Tattoo movie.
cruise019 November 2018
The Girl in the Spider's Web (4 out of 5 stars).

The Girl in the Spider's Web is the next entry in the Millenium book series which follows up after David Fincher's film The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. With a brand new casts, a new direction, and definitely out of order from the book series. Fede Alvarez direction is a visually entertaining piece, Claire Foy performance as Lisbeth Salander was not as bad, and the plot felt a little different from the others. I will say David Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is still the greatest film from Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara performance, and the electronic music score from Atticus Ross. Everything from that was missing in this film.

The plot follows Lisbeth (Claire Foy) were she is assigned to steal a program from NSA programmer Edwin (LaKeith Stanfield). When she is double crossed and a group called "spiders" steals it from her. She asks for Mikael (Sverrir Gudnason) help on investigating who this group is and how are they link to Lisbeth. When Lisbeth discovers that her past and mysterious sister Camilla (Sylvia Hoeks) has something to do with setting Lisbeth up.

The plot was still entertaining. Less complex than the dragon tattoo movie. And shorter with more action. Also, what I really enjoyed about this film was Lisbeth Salander is a bada** character who tries to protect women and the innocent people. From the opening moments, were she beats and blackmail a guy cause he was abusing his wife. And she empties all his funds to give to his wife. She is that antihero, she is a hacker who would steal a car, escape the police, and do whatever she can to get what she wants.

There is more action in this film than the others. A group of bad guys break into Lisbeth's warehouse. She avoids danger. She escapes the police by riding her motorcycle onto a frozen lake which was a cool sequence. Then, the climatic fight with her being trapped in a house with the bad guys and going head to head with her sister Camilla.

Fede Alvarez direction is entertaining. It is visually exciting from the set drop of locations in Sweden. Bike chases, fight scenes, and more escaping from the bad guys and running. The plot was different. The music score did not add anything to the tone of the movie like David Fincher's film did. Nor was the plot complex with a layered story.

Overall, The Girl with the Spider's Web is a good crime thriller film. Claire Foy was good as the character. Sverrir Gudnason was okay as Mikael, his role felt undeveloped. Sylvia Hoeks was good playing as the villain. Fede Alvarez does build its dark tone with its visual direction. And the plot is a forgettable one.
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
People please be objective !
drrick-reyes10 November 2018
So you have the usual « Oh the book was waaaay better ». We are in 2018, to date no movies made it better than the books. You have the « Seriously q computer program that does this... (or that) ». Hmmm... This is a fictional movie. Google FICTION 😉. And you have the Swedish... Oh Blonqvist is soooo much younger than 🗣🗣🗣.

This movie was entertaining. PERIOD.
13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
anamaka7012 November 2018
One of the worst movies of the decade! What were they thinking! Horrible story! Horrible acting! Horrible directing! Nothing adds at all.

I am going to talk about the casting or the movies editing because they won't even worth the words! They should give us our money and time back! I AM SERIOUS
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The end of the franchise
molinapolo10 November 2018
What a way to end a franchise, Fincher left the stardard too high. Rooney Mara is irreplaceable. Couldn't wait for this movie to end, amateur actors, overdone sequences, a flaw screenplay... what a waste of tape.
13 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
As Good as Any Spy Movie
homdeb105811 November 2018
I liked it. Didn't think it was any more far fetched than any Bond, Bourne, or M.I. tale. Was engaged during the entire movie. Enjoyed the twists and surprises. Found it fairly gripping. There was a few how did they know that, but there always is in these kind of movies. Anyway, it's not my job to know "how they knew all that", it the protagonists job, and she did it pretty well. A little gore but not excessive. I found Claire Foy an acceptable Dragon Tatoo girl. 8 of 10 for me.
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Good, but a Little Different From The Trailers
stevendbeard10 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I saw "The Girl in the Spider's Web", starring Claire Foy-The Crown_tv, Season of the Witch; Sverrir Gudnason-Borg vs McEnroe, A Serious Game; Sylvia Hoeks-Bladerunner 2049, Whatever Happens and Lakeith Stanfield-Atlanta_tv, Sorry to Bother You. This is the second in this Girl With a Dragon Tattoo series-the first American version was in 2011-with all new actors replacing Rooney Mara and Daniel Craig. Claire plays Lisbeth Salander, the computer whiz that rights wrongs and usually has her reporter friend, Sverrir, chronicling her adventures. Claire is hired to get back a stolen government computer program but gets wrapped up in all kinds of espionage. Lakeith plays an American agent trying to get the computer program for the good old US of A. Sylvia interferes with Claire's mission almost every step of the way and it may be because they have history with each other. It is a good thriller but it is a little different from what the trailers make it out to be. It's rated "R" for violence, language and sexual content-including nudity-and has a running time of 1 hour & 57 minutes. I enjoyed it and would buy it on DVD.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed