116 min
5.437
2024
USA
Forced to confront revelations about her past, paramedic Cassandra Webb forges a relationship with three young women destined for powerful futures...if they can all survive a deadly present.
Overview
Reviews
CinemaSerf wrote:We start off with an heavily pregnant woman deep in the Peruvian jungle looking for a very rare spider with her pal "Ezekiel" (Tahar Rahim). Guess what? Yep - she finds it, and almost immediately too! Anyway, it turns out that her pal isn't so friendly after all and pretty sharpish she is shot and face up in a pool of healing waters where her baby is being delivered by a jungle people with spidey-skills. Advance twenty-odd years and we meet paramedic "Cassie" (Dakota Johnson) who drives around with her partner "Ben" (Adam Scott), indifferently saving folks from disaster. It's one such disaster, though, that sees her tumbled deep into the river and having to be rescued by her buddy. This trauma appears to trigger something weird. She is getting flash-fronts. She can see the tiniest snippets of the future - and that doesn't usually bode well for anyone, including her! A trip on a train to a funeral proves decisive as three of the other passengers also feature in her dreams - all being the targets of a mysterious lycra-clad tunnel-climber bent on slaughter. Can she rescue them and find out just what's going on? Well possibly, but the story is just thin and the characters so undercooked that I didn't really care. The whole arachnid story line is under-developed to the point that I couldn't see what her skills really had to do with a spider at all. Tahar Rahim seemed uncertain if he was supposed to be "Deadpool" and/or Antonio Banderas and hats have to come off to Celeste O'Connor for playing the entirely obnoxious and attitudinal "Mattie" with quite such aplomb. The denouement is straight out of "Highlander" (1986) and I'm afraid that rather summed this up. Not an original bone in it's small and squidgy body, over-scripted and made for the sake of it. Sure, it's all about team bonding, trust and finding yourself (quite literally), but the readiness with which all concerned buy into this increasingly repetitive and whacky scenario is just daft. Like the whole multi-verse concept, the studios have decided to take super-hero films and flog them to death without worrying about concept, character or a decent story, and though Johnson does try to lift this where she can, it's ends up being something akin to one of those "Superman" television episodes we used to watch with Dean Cain - only with monotonous time-shifting!
r96sk wrote:Ouch, that average rating! I'm not going to lie though, I genuinely had a fun time watching 'Madame Web'... perhaps I should be keeping that fact quiet?
I don't know what to say, I found it to be suitably entertaining. I'm sure there are plot holes aplenty (I noticed a few) and it probably makes zero sense/isn't a good adaptation compared to its source material or whatever but honesty... I don't care, it gave me enough enjoyment that I wasn't questioning anything about what I was watching.
The cast are probably the key factors as to why I did enjoy this. I previously knew of Dakota Johnson but hadn't actually seen her in anything properly, I found her performance to be more than noteworthy and she spearheads the film strongly. The trio of Sydney Sweeney, Isabela Merced and Celeste O'Connor are positives too.
Tahar Rahim's antagonist, meanwhile, is poorly written and portrayed, though I personally thought the actor did a good job. I have no complaints with anyone who appears onscreen to be honest. Away from them, the pacing and score are also standouts.
In my recollection of viewing this, I truthfully haven't got any issues with it. If it wasn't for the slight bad murmurs that I did hear about pre-watch (though not much of it as I avoid as much as I can with movies) and the reaction on sites like this post-watch, I'd not be questioning my thoughts about this whatsoever.
As I always say, to each their own. For me, gimme a sequel (as long as the cast remain, mind). Not even sorry.
Chandler Danier wrote:Wooooow. Worse than the Marvels. Why did they dance on the table for like 20 guys? Who chose those glasses? But I sure do want a crisp, refreshing Pepsi Cola. Deadly good taste.
jesseyu wrote:Perhaps it was the perceived and preconceived notion that I had of this film being really bad as shown by its ratings scores from various sites, but I found this film actually really funny in a campy sort of way and better than decent in terms of not-big-budget superhero-film sort of way. In short, I came away enjoying it and unhappy with how this movie was portrayed in the movie-review media. I think it was just a piling on of the mob-mentality reviewers who tried to kick somebody who was already down, but anyway, I do hope this gets a sequel and I do hope the filmmakers continue with the campy, unintentionally funny, very quiet scenes with no theme music whatsoever style, low-budget-but-still-decent CGI, and over-all enjoyable moviemaking which can be watched and enjoyed for an hour and a half. A huge departure from those 3-hour self-important cinematic "spectacles" of today.
JPV852 wrote:Is Madame Web the worst superhero movie ever made? Not by a longshot as Superman IV, Batman & Robin and Supergirl would take a front seat in that department. Now the argument can be made it's the worst in the modern era of superhero movies, though personally it's "better" than Suicide Squad but even that one had costumed heroes in it versus MW which only had maybe a few minutes of the ladies in their costumes and even then, it's via future visions.
Beyond that, nothing really works. The direction, even with the twisty-turny camera movements felt familiar as I'm pretty sure I've seen it done before but minimally. The performances from everyone was either bland, Dakota Johnson especially, or downright awful (Tahar Rahim), not helped by the stilted and oft atrocious dialogue from no less than four writers, two of which were responsible for Morbius.
I didn't hate Madame Web more so that I found it downright dull and boring. There's no reason to watch this and with the terrible box office, the last line of "And you know the best thing about the future? It hasn't happened yet" is pretty poignant. **2.0/5**
wogelib503 wrote:FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://leakedcinema.com/en/movie/634492/MadameWeb
We come to this place... for magic.
We come to the theater to laugh, to cry, to care.
Because we need that, all of us:
that indescribable feeling we get when the lights begin to dim,
and we go somewhere we've never been before;
not just entertained, but somehow reborn.... together.
Dazzling images, on a huge silver screen.
Sound that I can feel.
Somehow, heartbreak feels good in a place like this.
Our heroes feel like the best part of us,
and stories feel perfect and powerful.
Because here...
> They are. the editing in this is enough to kill a small victorian child
misubisu wrote:I had no expectations goin into this movie... but it still managed to let me down.
A clear statement on just how bad this movie really was.
It was trash on so many levels, I don't know where to start... Casting was trash, acting was trash, dialogue was trash, directing was trash, premise was trash, plot holes big enough to pass a small planet through, and to top it of, the ending was mind blowingly ridiculous.
Not to mention that her super powers were embarrassing.
What was going through their minds [the people that decided to release this piece of trash].
BL1! wrote:Great movie. I loved the cast, and how much action there was. Great job MARVEL studios! 😀
TheSceneSnobs wrote:Watching this film, I couldn't shake the feeling that the script was written by AI. The story, themes, and dialogue all feel utterly soulless. The lifeless acting only compounds the problem, making the entire experience miserable.
The story lacks any genuine emotion or creativity. It's as if the writers followed a formula without injecting any passion or originality into the script. The central conflict, which should be gripping and engaging, instead feels generic and uninspired.
The dialogue is another significant issue. It’s stilted and unnatural, failing to convey any real depth or nuance. Characters speak in clichés and empty platitudes, making it hard to believe in their struggles or motivations.
The acting is equally disappointing. The cast delivers their lines with the enthusiasm of kids forced to do chores, contributing to the film's lifeless feel. This lack of energy and commitment can be attributed to both the actors and the director.
Comparing this film to Roger Corman's infamous Fantastic Four movie might seem harsh, but it's a fitting analogy. Both films suffer from poor execution and a lack of soul. However, this film arguably fares worse due to its complete absence of engaging elements. To salvage such a project, the filmmakers would need to infuse genuine emotion into the script and inspire more compelling performances from the cast.
This film is a prime example of how not to craft a sci-fi narrative. Its soulless script, lifeless acting, and overall lack of direction make it a difficult watch. Audiences deserve more than a formulaic, uninspired story; they deserve a film that engages and excites on every level.
