Review #2185: Madame Web.
Cast:
Dakota Johnson (Cassandra "Cassie" Webb / Madame Web), Sydney Sweeney (Julia Cornwall), Isabela Merced (Anya Corazon),
Celeste O'Connor (Mattie Franklin), Tahar Rahim (Ezekiel Sims), Mike Epps (O'Neil), Emma Roberts (Mary Parker),
Adam Scott (Ben Parker), Kerry Bishé (Constance Webb), Zosia Mamet (Amaria), and José María Yazpik (Santiago) Directed by S. J. Clarkson.
Review:
Is it wrong to go to a movie because of curiosity for how bad it could be? I had wondered just what movie directed by a woman had the worst rating prior to seeing this, and strangely enough, it was a film directed by Cheryl Hines in
Serious Moonlight (2009). The next three in "least worst" were:
Twilight (2008 - probably not that bad, but dire),
Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991), and
Hot Pursuit (2015). Now now, you might be saying highlighting terrible movies made by women is a bit ridiculous, but isn't equality all about highlighting terrible movies of both genders? March is National Women's History Month, so why not highlight a first-time effort? Actually, S. J. Clarkson has been a director since the early 2000s, all of which being in television, whether that was
Doctors or
Jessica Jones. Clarkson was tapped to direct by 2020, and she would be one of the handful of numerous writers behind this adaptation of the comic book character (as created by Denny O'Neil and John Romita Jr for
The Amazing Spider-Man comic in 1980, and apparently Web has never been featured in their own comic). The screenplay was done by Matt Sazama, Burk Sharpless, Claire Parker, and Clarkson, while the story was done by Kerem Sanga, Matt Sazama, and Burk Sharpless. Apparently, the work done by Sazama and Sharpless on films such as
Morbius (2022) was worthy enough for Sony to want to see them return for another film in their so-called Sony's Spider-Man Universe. Honestly, even for someone as weird about movies involving action like me, I forgot that Sony has tried to their own set of films based on Spider-Man characters (such as the two
Venom films and
Morbius but not the
Spider-Verse films, I guess). One might wonder if it seems like beating a dead horse to talk negatively about a movie rather than highlight something else. The easy answer to that is:
what plane of reality do you live in? One can see all the movies they want that they say is "good", but a significant amount of stuff is still bad. In fact, some of it is really bad, so why try to act one is above it? The funny thing is I don't even care that much about talking about the divide of comic book movies and, well, movies, since I've been playing pick and choose for the last few years anyway (unless it seemed good like
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, as opposed to stuff that I figured, well...
). With that being said, I went into this film expecting a silly movie for 116 minutes, and the best thing to say is that I got to see it all by myself in a theater (this film has been out for almost a month, so...).
This was delightfully terrible to watch. Apparently, instead of being set in the 1990s, the timeline was changed to 2003 during reshoots (as told by posters of Beyonce, namedropping Idol, red Mountain Dew and a retro clock I had like 10 years ago). One wonders how much energy was present before the reshoots...because there sure is little of it here. Not one actor seems to be invested in a film that has a character that spends most of their time saying "look out!" when it comes to the action sequences. Okay, so I knew a very little bit of what "Madame Web" was in the comics and figured two things: one, that she was vaguely related to Spider-Man and 2. the name sounds like one would use for a brothel owner. The resulting film did not help matters, because really her powers here just seem like cheating more than anything. "Web" can see...somewhat into a future. Sure, she can't foresee when she'll get blinded and crippled (so she can avoid it), but she can conjure up plot exposition (for when she has mommy issues that come to the forefront for like, one scene) and tell people when to duck when being confronted by Generic Bad Guy or open a window so a pigeon won't bonk into it. The movie seems to think it is envisioned like a suspense thriller, but little of that comes through for a movie that makes really wonder why Web wasn't thought of as an adversarial character or one that has...to learn something about the nature of their power. What the film really involves is "film made by committee", such as the idea of three teens (played by adults) that are teased as future Spider-People with suits...just for visions. I can't tell what was funnier: the main character leaving the three teens she basically kidnapped on accident in the woods so she can go to her apartment to study (exposition) notes or her leaving them with her friend (with a pregnant sister-in-law) so she can go to Peru and find exposition with a secret tribe of spider-people. The answer is Option C: a Pepsi sign being a big part of a climax where absolutely nothing of scale is shown for interesting detail. If you told someone this was reported as being made for $80 million, they probably would say "what, did the accountants hide it?"
Honestly, Johnson is the "best" part of the film, if only because among all the drained performances trying to get through a film of bluescreen, the ounces of amusement to be had here come because of her. Maybe there was an interesting script somewhere in the original drafts that had something to do with the perils of knowing the future. Instead, one is left adrift in a sea of awkward characterization that probably nobody would've made work with the way this film was sludged in and out. At least she tried. Less successful is Rahim, seemingly playing a villain in the art of "ADR" that isn't even defined at the bare minimum of "how did they get here?" (how does one go from stealing a spider in Peru to being rich - use your imagination, I guess). The adversary he plays is "slightly strong with poison, totally legit guys", can't shoot webs, and has visions that three spider-women will kill him. Honestly, making a movie where a nut is on the loose that believes he has to hunt some people down to save himself could made an idea for a thriller (particularly since he has hands on tech that means he can look at public cameras like it was the Patriot Act), but, well, he has no sense of menace present. Hell, I know he has some sort of poison with touch, but, like, one couldn't have gone for the overkill route and carried a weapon too? Sure, he would probably go Bond Villain route and talk rather than shoot when presented the chance, but, well, it would at least present the chance of a trait to think about. The random guy next to you when in line for something (fast food, shopping, paying bills) probably will spook you more than Rahim in this film, but again, sounding like one is being ADR'd helps no one. The trio of Sweeney-Merced-O'Connor have about as much energy as one has when trying to make excuses for why they aren't going to the local theater on their day off, with the scene of each explaining why they can't go to the cops when in their predicament is unintentionally amusing for the execution of those lines in juxtaposition with being unintentionally kidnapped (since each is ridiculously stuck in a bad spot like rich parents or, um, their dad was deported). The web of how they are tangled with Johnson (junk mail! awkward encounters! flipping a paramedic!) makes me laugh just as much, because it has the charisma of someone trying to find reasons to have a reason to keep talking to you in line when high school ended 15 years ago. Scott is the only other person in the film for more than a scene (unless you count Mamet going "I'm scanning the data" as being there longer), and it probably should mean something to be playing "Uncle Ben" other than, oh, right, this could have been any name, which kind of goes for Roberts (daughter of the cool Roberts in the family - Eric) for a movie with the level of stakes that are lower than how much kibble one should give their pet for dinner. If one really thinks about it, the most befuddling line is one at the end that seems like a joke, when Johnson's character says "that's what he thinks" about a guy seemingly about to enjoy becoming a uncle with none of the responsibility. I feel like Madame Web being around as a pal to a guy kind of means...one would be troubled by knowing they are going to be doing more than being an uncle to a child. But I'm sure the "greater good" precludes that in the same way that the Future Spider-Girls (trademark) must stay on the path to do Totally Heroic Stuff (while Web gets to say bless you five seconds in advance for cheap party tricks and maybe wear a suit because why?). Making a "gritty" attempt at a comic film probably had some idea of meat on it before it was hacked by some sort of studio notes, or God forbid, it actually was worse (someone should put a false rumor of having the original script just for the idea of a troll campaign to Release The Less Crappy Madame Web Cut). On the whole, folks probably already know the movie stinks, but it seemed ripe to make fun of a movie aptly appropriate for the era of bloated studio filmmaking that tries to make franchises and streaming the thing to try and suck all the life out of what should be the simplest thing: fun. The only fun worth having with Madame Web is to make fun of it, and it will likely rank as one of the most amusing features to namedrop for fun in the coming future.
On that note, Happy International Women's Day. Go see better movies!
Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.
