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.
503 Reviews
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.
Enjoyable while you're watching it, but much of it makes no sense
neil-4763 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Lisbeth Salander goes around Stockholm as a female vigilante, sticking up for abused women who can't stick up for themselves. She is hired to retrieve a computer programme, but finds herself targeted by various factions.
Claire Foy plays the tattooed Lisbeth in a story which is not by Stieg Larsson. It is full of action, intrigue, and things which you may or may not see coming (you should, they are telegraphed strongly enough). It's never a dull moment. Something is always happening, and it looks so cold that you wonder why people live there.
And then you come out and you're no longer in the moment, so you start thinking about things, and you realise that a great deal of what you have just watched makes no sense at all, starting with the maguffin - sorry, computer program - that all the excitement is about. This program can access all the world's nuclear codes from anywhere. You can't copy it, but you can move it. How does that work, then?
The cast are all good, but the film is all noise and no substance.
Claire Foy plays the tattooed Lisbeth in a story which is not by Stieg Larsson. It is full of action, intrigue, and things which you may or may not see coming (you should, they are telegraphed strongly enough). It's never a dull moment. Something is always happening, and it looks so cold that you wonder why people live there.
And then you come out and you're no longer in the moment, so you start thinking about things, and you realise that a great deal of what you have just watched makes no sense at all, starting with the maguffin - sorry, computer program - that all the excitement is about. This program can access all the world's nuclear codes from anywhere. You can't copy it, but you can move it. How does that work, then?
The cast are all good, but the film is all noise and no substance.
A Bit of a Mess
Hitchcoc1 January 2020
Boy, a lot of people disliked this movie. It suffers from the strength of its predecessors. It also suffers from too much for one film. We don't get enough psychological foundation, for one thing The bad guys have way too much power and this thing they can launch is pretty hard to swallow. Imagine that she and her sister have the future of the world in their hands. Thirdly, it is based on a book, written after the original series (an average book but entertaining). the problem is it ignores major plot elements. I doubt we'll see any more of these films.
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.
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.
Not quite of Swedish quality
Field788 November 2018
The first Millennium-novel adaptation was a slam-dunk piece of world cinema, featuring plot- and character-driven tension, a very moody atmosphere, stellar performances from the cast, and, equally important, daring subject matter. The dark underbelly of Swedish society (or Western society in general) wasn't ignored but often shown in its full ugliness. The two sequels made for television may have lacked the great plot but still had most of the other ingredients that made this series so deliciously unglamorous and un-Hollywood. Even David Fincher remained very respectful to the material, and re-adapted the first book as Swedish as could be, with equal parts plot and character, great actors and beautiful photography of the cold Swedish landscape. There was rejoice when it was announced that he would also adapt the next two books back-to-back. But then there was silence.... and probably studio interference.
What exactly happened is still unclear, but for some reason, a decision was made to skip book 2 and 3 and go straight to the fourth, written by David Lagercrantz after original author Stieg Larsson had died. Fincher (no stranger to studio indecisiveness since Alien 3) and his cast probably skipped town after that, so the studio decided (or had no other choice than) to do a "soft reboot" with a new cast and crew. And that didn't go flawlessly.
Fede Alvarez, the guy who made it rain blood in the Evil Dead remake, didn't exactly sound like the logical choice as director; then again, neither did Peter Jackson for Lord of the Rings. And Alvarez also made Don't Breathe, where he didn't shy away from an insane and dark twist at the end. Being originally a non-Hollywood director, he could have brought some unique sensibilities to the table. But alas, it wasn't meant to be, because The Girl in the Spider's Web just got the Hollywood treatment, and not in all the good ways.
Gone is the deliberately slow pace that gave ample opportunities for character development and world building. Where the previous movies fully integrated the Swedish environments into the storytelling as a character in itself, they are now mostly relegated to being extras. There is nice photography and some photogenic locations, but they feature mostly in brief establishing shots or as background (with the exception of one nice setpiece involving a vertical-lift bridge). Partially to blame are the film's excessive pacing and action, which leave little time to linger on the locale. Apparently, the makers thought it necessary to beef up the story with fast-edited, Bourne-like action and slick explosions. Now admittedly, it looks good on screen, but this is not necessarily the film for it, because the plot and characterizations noticeably suffer from this need to keep things constantly in motion.
The story feels kind of familiar: Lisbeth Salander agrees to help a client, but powerful criminals interfere and set her up for murder, making her intent on getting the perpetrators and staying out of the hands of the authorities. If you thought this sounds like The Girl Who Played With Fire (book 2), then the appearance of an unstoppable muscular blond guy will not be too surprising either. The problem, however, is that the thin plot comprises little more than everyone chasing a technological McGuffin. If it isn't easy enough to shoot holes in such a premise, the implausibilities and coincidences pile up throughout the story, like people with selective memories, and police cars that can conveniently track and control a random car by GPS. Towards the end, the movie starts to rely more and more on high-tech gadgets that belong in a James Bond or Mission Impossible movie. Granted, it makes for some pleasing action scenes, but it removes much of the vulnerability and humanity that the previous films were famous for.
The most unfortunate consequence of all that plot-driven storytelling and blockbuster treatment is that the characters remain so underdeveloped. Claire Foy is adequate as Lisbeth Salander, although her performance doesn't feel as lived-in as Rooney Mara's and definitely not as Noomi Rapace's (who got way too little credit for it). We are well aware of Lisbeth's capability to stand her ground, and seeing her take on a bunch of henchmen incidentally is always a joy. But re-inventing her as an action hero was a mistake, because it takes away from what makes her most interesting: a woman with a brilliant intellect and survival skills, trapped inside an antisocial mindset.
A bigger victim is Sverrir Gudnason as Michael Blomkvist: a seasoned veteran and determined, complex man in the previous films, he has been reimagined as an insecure rookie, hardly getting anything more meaningful to do than advance the plot when the script calls for it; everything that could have rounded his character more (like the situation at his work, his relation with Lisbeth or his affaire with a colleague) is immediately cut short.
But the shortest end of the stick goes to my fellow Dutchie Sylvia Hoeks, who was an adequate bad girl in Blade Runner 2049. Here, her character gets a minimum of motivation and some Freudian flashbacks to justify a ridiculous scheme that hardly makes any sense. So much more could have been done with her character other than filling the role of one-dimensional Bond villain.
In all fairness, director Alvarez and his fellow screenwriters incidentally find the right tone. The first scene between Lisbeth and Michael is both appropriately awkward and visually appealing; there is a nice and suspenseful scene on a bridge, and an airport scene where the fast editing and Lisbeth's inventiveness are used to great effect. Lakeith Stanfield of Get Out fame has one of the more grateful roles as an American NSA agent who will either be a burden or a an asset, something that plays out quite satisfactorily. And despite overrelying on technology, the climax is well executed, and at least better than the almost laughable final confrontation.
To summarize, this reboot has its moments, but unfortunately turns out as an overproduced and too well-polished action-thriller, where a slow-paced, raw drama-thriller would have been more effective. Especially with such strong characters that we have come to love over the years. Let's hope that the reverse will happen here, and the Swedes re-adapt the book on their own terms in the future.
What exactly happened is still unclear, but for some reason, a decision was made to skip book 2 and 3 and go straight to the fourth, written by David Lagercrantz after original author Stieg Larsson had died. Fincher (no stranger to studio indecisiveness since Alien 3) and his cast probably skipped town after that, so the studio decided (or had no other choice than) to do a "soft reboot" with a new cast and crew. And that didn't go flawlessly.
Fede Alvarez, the guy who made it rain blood in the Evil Dead remake, didn't exactly sound like the logical choice as director; then again, neither did Peter Jackson for Lord of the Rings. And Alvarez also made Don't Breathe, where he didn't shy away from an insane and dark twist at the end. Being originally a non-Hollywood director, he could have brought some unique sensibilities to the table. But alas, it wasn't meant to be, because The Girl in the Spider's Web just got the Hollywood treatment, and not in all the good ways.
Gone is the deliberately slow pace that gave ample opportunities for character development and world building. Where the previous movies fully integrated the Swedish environments into the storytelling as a character in itself, they are now mostly relegated to being extras. There is nice photography and some photogenic locations, but they feature mostly in brief establishing shots or as background (with the exception of one nice setpiece involving a vertical-lift bridge). Partially to blame are the film's excessive pacing and action, which leave little time to linger on the locale. Apparently, the makers thought it necessary to beef up the story with fast-edited, Bourne-like action and slick explosions. Now admittedly, it looks good on screen, but this is not necessarily the film for it, because the plot and characterizations noticeably suffer from this need to keep things constantly in motion.
The story feels kind of familiar: Lisbeth Salander agrees to help a client, but powerful criminals interfere and set her up for murder, making her intent on getting the perpetrators and staying out of the hands of the authorities. If you thought this sounds like The Girl Who Played With Fire (book 2), then the appearance of an unstoppable muscular blond guy will not be too surprising either. The problem, however, is that the thin plot comprises little more than everyone chasing a technological McGuffin. If it isn't easy enough to shoot holes in such a premise, the implausibilities and coincidences pile up throughout the story, like people with selective memories, and police cars that can conveniently track and control a random car by GPS. Towards the end, the movie starts to rely more and more on high-tech gadgets that belong in a James Bond or Mission Impossible movie. Granted, it makes for some pleasing action scenes, but it removes much of the vulnerability and humanity that the previous films were famous for.
The most unfortunate consequence of all that plot-driven storytelling and blockbuster treatment is that the characters remain so underdeveloped. Claire Foy is adequate as Lisbeth Salander, although her performance doesn't feel as lived-in as Rooney Mara's and definitely not as Noomi Rapace's (who got way too little credit for it). We are well aware of Lisbeth's capability to stand her ground, and seeing her take on a bunch of henchmen incidentally is always a joy. But re-inventing her as an action hero was a mistake, because it takes away from what makes her most interesting: a woman with a brilliant intellect and survival skills, trapped inside an antisocial mindset.
A bigger victim is Sverrir Gudnason as Michael Blomkvist: a seasoned veteran and determined, complex man in the previous films, he has been reimagined as an insecure rookie, hardly getting anything more meaningful to do than advance the plot when the script calls for it; everything that could have rounded his character more (like the situation at his work, his relation with Lisbeth or his affaire with a colleague) is immediately cut short.
But the shortest end of the stick goes to my fellow Dutchie Sylvia Hoeks, who was an adequate bad girl in Blade Runner 2049. Here, her character gets a minimum of motivation and some Freudian flashbacks to justify a ridiculous scheme that hardly makes any sense. So much more could have been done with her character other than filling the role of one-dimensional Bond villain.
In all fairness, director Alvarez and his fellow screenwriters incidentally find the right tone. The first scene between Lisbeth and Michael is both appropriately awkward and visually appealing; there is a nice and suspenseful scene on a bridge, and an airport scene where the fast editing and Lisbeth's inventiveness are used to great effect. Lakeith Stanfield of Get Out fame has one of the more grateful roles as an American NSA agent who will either be a burden or a an asset, something that plays out quite satisfactorily. And despite overrelying on technology, the climax is well executed, and at least better than the almost laughable final confrontation.
To summarize, this reboot has its moments, but unfortunately turns out as an overproduced and too well-polished action-thriller, where a slow-paced, raw drama-thriller would have been more effective. Especially with such strong characters that we have come to love over the years. Let's hope that the reverse will happen here, and the Swedes re-adapt the book on their own terms in the future.
Forget the Books, watch it with a hangover
eclipssse31 October 2018
An insult to the Millennium series
germaineaarnold23 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I don't usually review films but I felt compelled to after watching this.
I should say that this from the perspective of someone who has read the Millennium books, and perhaps you would feel differently if you hadn't, but I doubt it because this film is a total mess.
The set pieces are boring, the plot is all over the place, the characters' motivations are unclear and it generally felt hugely pointless and unsatisfying.
When I read the Girl in the Spider's Web I felt it was okay but not up to Stieg Larsson's standards, that the plotting felt a little clunky, and certain characters felt off. This film makes the book look like the greatest work of literature of the past few hundred years.
** Spoilers follow **
Most adaptations excise a lot of side plots to condense a story down to two hours. I wasn't surprised to see everything about August's mother, a lot of Sapo and NSA stuff and much of the Millennium ownership go.
However, the introduction of a big standard "nuke the world" plot, Ed Needham becoming a stupid action hero with Plague as his sidekick, August not being mute...(I could go on) made it feel like the writers might as well have not bothered with the book.
Add to that, the main twist from the book, about lisbeth's sister is revealed immediately (it was in the trailer!)
But the very worst thing was that not one of the characters acted in a way that you would expect. Blomkvist was a spare part throughout and he decided not to publish! It would have been better to not have Erika in it at all given what she had to do. Gabriella Grane became a villain who died as soon as you realised she was and Ed the Ned was unrecognisable.
The idea of Lisbeth as a random vigilante who, throughout the film, even before the Balder saga, is Stockholm's most wanted, is particularly stupid.
** spoilers end **
Claire Foy is not bad, but is definitely less convincing as Lisbeth than Noomi Rapace or Rooney Mara. It's ridiculous that Mara says she wasn't even asked about reprising the role when she was the best thing in the last film and really committed to the role. Mara actually got piercings and shaved her head for the role, Foy by comparison looks like she can't wait to get back into her normal gear.
The other roles are so flimsy that it would be unfair to judge the actors, though I suppose Stephen Merchant did okay with limited material.
In summary, if you have read any of the books, please do not see this film. The Swedish adaptations of the original trilogy are infinitely better and even David Fincher's US remake of the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is a masterpiece compared with this. If you have not read any of the books, please still do not see this film. It is a totally mediocre thriller, with no stakes, no drama, confusing motivations and no payoff.
I should say that this from the perspective of someone who has read the Millennium books, and perhaps you would feel differently if you hadn't, but I doubt it because this film is a total mess.
The set pieces are boring, the plot is all over the place, the characters' motivations are unclear and it generally felt hugely pointless and unsatisfying.
When I read the Girl in the Spider's Web I felt it was okay but not up to Stieg Larsson's standards, that the plotting felt a little clunky, and certain characters felt off. This film makes the book look like the greatest work of literature of the past few hundred years.
** Spoilers follow **
Most adaptations excise a lot of side plots to condense a story down to two hours. I wasn't surprised to see everything about August's mother, a lot of Sapo and NSA stuff and much of the Millennium ownership go.
However, the introduction of a big standard "nuke the world" plot, Ed Needham becoming a stupid action hero with Plague as his sidekick, August not being mute...(I could go on) made it feel like the writers might as well have not bothered with the book.
Add to that, the main twist from the book, about lisbeth's sister is revealed immediately (it was in the trailer!)
But the very worst thing was that not one of the characters acted in a way that you would expect. Blomkvist was a spare part throughout and he decided not to publish! It would have been better to not have Erika in it at all given what she had to do. Gabriella Grane became a villain who died as soon as you realised she was and Ed the Ned was unrecognisable.
The idea of Lisbeth as a random vigilante who, throughout the film, even before the Balder saga, is Stockholm's most wanted, is particularly stupid.
** spoilers end **
Claire Foy is not bad, but is definitely less convincing as Lisbeth than Noomi Rapace or Rooney Mara. It's ridiculous that Mara says she wasn't even asked about reprising the role when she was the best thing in the last film and really committed to the role. Mara actually got piercings and shaved her head for the role, Foy by comparison looks like she can't wait to get back into her normal gear.
The other roles are so flimsy that it would be unfair to judge the actors, though I suppose Stephen Merchant did okay with limited material.
In summary, if you have read any of the books, please do not see this film. The Swedish adaptations of the original trilogy are infinitely better and even David Fincher's US remake of the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is a masterpiece compared with this. If you have not read any of the books, please still do not see this film. It is a totally mediocre thriller, with no stakes, no drama, confusing motivations and no payoff.
Pretty cool
Darth_Osmosis13 November 2018
I have not read the books, I think I should say this first! But as a movie it's a rather cool cyber/spy/espionage thriller! It has many twists and turns, although the story is overall quite predictable. It still manages to have quite many cool moments and scenes that are enjoyable and entertaining. If you like the genre and are not expecting to be completely blown away, then it probably will not disappoint!
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.
That's all I can think of at the moment. But you get the idea.
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 recognised 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.
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 recognised 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.
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.
This movie was entertaining. PERIOD.
Claire Foy is not Lisbeth Salander
cmeneses-7495713 November 2018
First of I love Claire Foy, she is a fantastic actrees. She is also very sweet. Lisbeth Salander is not. So it doesn't matter how much leather you put on top of Claire, she's never going to resemble Lisbeth Salander, the punk skinny girl with the dragon tattoo on her back. Claire is also "old" for the role. Claire is 34. Lisbeth somewhere between 24 and 26. It wouldn't matter so much except that the books depict Lisbeth as someone that looks fragile, even child-like. Claire on the other hand looks like a mother of two or three kids dressed in a Halloween custome (no offense).
And then we have Sverrir Gudnanson, who looks like he is 32 when Blomkvist is a fater-type figure.
Top that with changing the character's motivations and archetypes completely and you get a disaster. "The Girl in the Spider's Web" could very well be called "Lisbeth Bourne" because somehow in the three years between Dragon Tattoo and this book/film Lisbeth became a 00 type agent.
Terrible movie for fans. Mediocre movie for everyone else.
And then we have Sverrir Gudnanson, who looks like he is 32 when Blomkvist is a fater-type figure.
Top that with changing the character's motivations and archetypes completely and you get a disaster. "The Girl in the Spider's Web" could very well be called "Lisbeth Bourne" because somehow in the three years between Dragon Tattoo and this book/film Lisbeth became a 00 type agent.
Terrible movie for fans. Mediocre movie for everyone else.
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
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
Not fantastic but worth seeing
carta-033029 November 2018
I'm a big fan of this franchise and I was worried when all the bad reviews started rolling in. But, there was a lot of powerful attributes although it is a little heavy handed in some places and missing some connective tissue in others. But overall, Foy grasps Salander well; avoiding eye contact and evasive but determined.
It's abysmal and too far from the original movie
imursel28 January 2019
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.
David Fincer's version is much better!
UniqueParticle5 June 2019
Fede Alvarez should stick with horror! This was too much action and not enough story - despite that it was quite enjoyable to some extent. Some sweet stylish bits and stunts. Claire Foy & Lakeith Stanfeld were awesome; but I prefer Rooney Mara as the titular role and Daniel Craig as the supporting role. I honestly wouldn't recommend this.
Disappointed
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
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
A generic techno thriller with a palpably small budget and an equal amount of embarrassing choices as decent ones.
Offworld_Colony7 February 2020
Claire Foy is solid but she's not given much breathing room, unlike Rooney Mara's Lisbeth, a character that Fincher was clearly deeply in love with, director Fede Alvarez is more interested in action setpieces. The film looks stunning, it's well composed and well-lit, but its story and dialogue leaves a lot wanting.
Monumentally stupid.
FreddyShoop7 February 2019
Fans of Noomi Rapace's "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" will be SHOCKED about how awful this movie is. They've tried to turn her into James Bond, but with plots and characters that the worst Bond movie writers & directors would blush at.
A professional reviewer had it right when they said " This is the kind of tension-free thriller that requires even the most seemingly intelligent of characters to act like absolute morons in order to get from one clumsy plot point to the next."
It is still shocking that so-called "professionals" can write, direct, and produce a piece of garbage this bad...with a production budget in the millions. Didn't any of them ever love the movies? What happened?!
A professional reviewer had it right when they said " This is the kind of tension-free thriller that requires even the most seemingly intelligent of characters to act like absolute morons in order to get from one clumsy plot point to the next."
It is still shocking that so-called "professionals" can write, direct, and produce a piece of garbage this bad...with a production budget in the millions. Didn't any of them ever love the movies? What happened?!
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.
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.
The Trees Fade in the Mist
richardchatten14 January 2022
In 1919 Fritz Lang created a gang called 'Die Spinnen'; nearly a hundred years later the girl with the dragon tattoo is back in the tiny, chain-smoking form of Dutch actress Sylvia Hoeks (dangling throughout by her shoulders like a marionette and obviously in the lead despite only being billed third) to do battle with their namesakes in this lugubrious thriller which employs Stockholm as a backdrop as countless other films have used London or L. A.
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
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
Why didn't they lock in Mara for the trilogy?!
phinfan-316684 November 2018
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
