Sony strikes againantovolk wrote: ↑September 26th, 2018, 5:50 amNo, they literally crowbarred it into the (US, so far) title.ArmandFancypants wrote: ↑September 26th, 2018, 12:18 am...isnt that just a tagline thing?Ruth wrote: ↑September 25th, 2018, 12:58 pmrequest title change lmfao
https://www.slashfilm.com/the-girl-in-t ... web-title/
The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018)
meh reviews
at least the UHD of Fincher's is out soon
-Vader
at least the UHD of Fincher's is out soon
-Vader
Nearly finished the book. Outside of the cast, my excitement has really gone down for this movie. The marketing has been awful, and the way Sony has chosen to continue this franchise in the weirdest way possible displays a lack of care in the source material. But I'll reframe judgement on the movie itself until I actually watch it.
This movie fails on almost every single level if you view it only as an entry into the Millennium series. It treats itself like a sequel to the 2011 version, yet it confirms through dialogue that it skips over the other 2 books. You feel so dirty watching the opening credits because it carries over the exact same style that Tim Miller created. Plus, it lacks the social commentary on society's treatment of women that is always present from the first 3 books.
However, if you treat it as a pulpy, 90s Thriller throwback, this is actually a really entertaining movie with some great action and set pieces. Foy does wonders with the material she is given, but it does not hold a candle to Mara's interpretation. Alvarez actually does a really good job; he's no Fincher, but I really enjoyed the visual flare he brought to the story.
If I had to point fingers at why this failed, I blame it on the producers for their grotesque vision for the franchise. It fails as a reboot because the ghost of the narrative it skipped looming over it, and it chooses to be something that does not represent what the books were about. However, if you divorce yourself of continuity and take this movie as a singular story that begins and ends, it is not hard to discover something enjoyable. I can see myself watching it again.
However, if you treat it as a pulpy, 90s Thriller throwback, this is actually a really entertaining movie with some great action and set pieces. Foy does wonders with the material she is given, but it does not hold a candle to Mara's interpretation. Alvarez actually does a really good job; he's no Fincher, but I really enjoyed the visual flare he brought to the story.
If I had to point fingers at why this failed, I blame it on the producers for their grotesque vision for the franchise. It fails as a reboot because the ghost of the narrative it skipped looming over it, and it chooses to be something that does not represent what the books were about. However, if you divorce yourself of continuity and take this movie as a singular story that begins and ends, it is not hard to discover something enjoyable. I can see myself watching it again.
Amy Pascal is truly awful.
Posts: 55632
Joined:
May 2010
How was Sylvia Hoeks? This is most likely a blu-ray for me but might catch it in local cinema. 🕷BlairCo wrote: ↑November 8th, 2018, 11:22 pmThis movie fails on almost every single level if you view it only as an entry into the Millennium series. It treats itself like a sequel to the 2011 version, yet it confirms through dialogue that it skips over the other 2 books. You feel so dirty watching the opening credits because it carries over the exact same style that Tim Miller created. Plus, it lacks the social commentary on society's treatment of women that is always present from the first 3 books.
However, if you treat it as a pulpy, 90s Thriller throwback, this is actually a really entertaining movie with some great action and set pieces. Foy does wonders with the material she is given, but it does not hold a candle to Mara's interpretation. Alvarez actually does a really good job; he's no Fincher, but I really enjoyed the visual flare he brought to the story.
If I had to point fingers at why this failed, I blame it on the producers for their grotesque vision for the franchise. It fails as a reboot because the ghost of the narrative it skipped looming over it, and it chooses to be something that does not represent what the books were about. However, if you divorce yourself of continuity and take this movie as a singular story that begins and ends, it is not hard to discover something enjoyable. I can see myself watching it again.
Hoeks is good, but she's never able to sink her teeth into the role as much as you would love her to. She does more with a single look in Blade Runner 2049 than she is able to do here with any material given, but I don't blame that on her.
Posts: 55632
Joined:
May 2010
Too bad. Yeah, well, like you said, Fede ain't Fincher. Doesn't even have to be. I see this as one of those bestselling Scandinavian books - easy to read, easy to forget.🕷
It's a satisfying enough iTunes HD rental.