User ReviewsReview this title
That's all I can think of at the moment. But you get the idea.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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'...so 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.
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.
This movie was entertaining. PERIOD.
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