MADAME WEB (2024)

Studio:   Columbia Pictures
Director: S.J. Clarkson
Writer:   Matt Sazama, Burk Sharpless, Claire Parker, S.J. Clarkson, Kerem Sanga
Producer: Lorenzo di Bonaventura
Stars:    Dakota Johnson, Sydney Sweeney, Isabela Merced, Celeste O'Connor, Tahar Rahim, Mike Epps, Emma Roberts, Adam Scott, Kerry Bishe, Zosia Mamet, Jose Maria Yazpik

Review Score:


Summary:

Spider-Man's mythology expands when a clairvoyant woman discovers her true destiny as she races to protect three future superheroes from the man who murdered her mother.


Synopsis:     

Review:

"Madame Web" could not escape its destiny. It was born to be bad. "Morbius" (review here), which Madame Web herself could have seen would blow up as a bomb even as far back as principal photography in 2019, was a universally derided disappointment. So why on Earth-616 would anyone willingly invite its screenwriters back to pen a second cinematic universe starter when their first go failed so infamously? Additionally, director S.J. Clarkson certainly has extensive experience in television, including three episodes of "Heroes" and two episodes of "Jessica Jones," but maybe a major motion picture meant to birth a series of spinoffs wasn't a situation set up for success for a first-time feature.

Besides being creatively behind the eight-ball to begin with, have you ever thought about exactly how Hollywood makes matters worse? Perhaps a parallel from my other life as a copywriter can offer some speculation as to how studio notes, artistic interference, and too many cooks can contribute to making a collective mess in an already chaotic kitchen.

I write copy in the entertainment industry, with the bulk of my work being those synopses seen on the backs of Blu-ray boxes. Like any project that has to pass through multiple levels of approval, it is of course not at all unusual to receive requests for revisions. Marketing departments may have specific ideas in mind with what they want something to say. Art departments might need things to fit a certain size. Essentially, multiple needs must be satisfied, and you may have to keep tuning until everyone gets what they want, or something close to it.

Sometimes, copy will come back already rewritten, and it will resemble anything from a close clone to a completely rebuilt Frankenstein of a monster. Sometimes, it's just a word or two. Maybe someone has a hang-up about a particular adjective, so they swap it out with a different one. Seems simple enough, except that change might be made without considering how it affects the rest of the paragraph. I've had to point out before that a replacement word already appeared in another sentence, so suddenly we sounded like a broken record.

There have also been cases where someone might want the final sentence to be first, for instance. Again, that's theoretically fine, until such a swap changes the flow of how the whole thing reads. You can't always pull pieces apart, move parts around or plunk new bits in, and sew everything back together under an assumption that everything is still in there somewhere. Rhythm doesn't work that way.

That's not dissimilar to how studio suits or other people in power cut into a creative idea without seeing how what they think is a tiny ripple can actually create a tidal wave. You've heard the stories about producer Jon Peters' insistence on shoving giant spiders into his movies? Along similar lines, imagine there's a 65-year-old executive in the room who has never read a comic book in her life, so she archaically regards them as "funny books" for children. Then when a script or test footage comes in depicting an antagonist like a street-level sociopath, she demands they ham up his character so he turns into her idea of a cartoon bad guy. Maybe someone else says a scene contains elements that could be problematic for foreign markets, so they demand its excision to avoid complications in overseas territories. Don't forget the folks who paid big bucks to have their brand name featured prominently onscreen. Got to make sure their items make it into the movie somehow, as well.

By the time everyone who has some sort of say in the final cut has stroked their egos, fulfilled a favor for a family member, or justified their job by demanding their input be acknowledged, a movie might look like an entirely different entity than whatever was originally envisioned. How else is there to explain "Madame Web's" extraordinary mishmash of notable names tucked into inconsequential roles, shoehorned plot beats, endless exposition written to be blandly basic, and a hilariously obvious pileup of Pepsi product placement? Did a Pepsico CEO have a seat at the decision-making table, too?

Yet the jumbled mess of five different writers (and there were probably more who went uncredited) patchworking competing scripts together while plugging in additional variables set forth by parent companies only explains "Madame Web's" dopey narrative. It doesn't explain why every word out of Cassie Webb's nemesis Ezekiel Sims sounds like it came from a completely different person in a sound booth rather than from actor Tahar Rahim's mouth. Did Rahim get Sam J. Jones-ed or was the boom operator so terrible at his job that all of Ezekiel's dialogue had to be re-recorded?

It also doesn't explain why all of the acting is uniformly awkward. Dakota Johnson delivers lines so listlessly, she might be mistaken for a female Pinocchio. In her defense, even Meryl Streep would have a hard time pulling "Madame Web's" mid material out of the sewage-flooded cellar. "He was in the Amazon with my mom when she was researching spiders right before she died" might have been cut from the movie, but what was left in isn't much better. I started going back through the film to pull a few of the silliest quotes as examples, then I realized virtually every single exchange provides proof of how ham-handed each spoken interaction is.

Built on a bed of cliches and contrivances, like Cassie never before noticing the man in the only picture she possesses of her mother, or a flimsy finale conveniently set inside a fireworks factory, "Madame Web's" best bit is the final two minutes that flash forward to a presumably better movie where the three girls under Cassie's protection fight as superpowered heroes in Spider-Women costumes, instead of being yanked around as an indistinguishable mass that's merely a magnet for the vanilla villain. I want whatever movie Jill Hennessy originally signed up for, because I can't imagine an actor who fronted two long-running TV series was only supposed to be an unnamed "Beautiful Woman" in two throwaway scenes here. Ditto Emma Roberts, who was clearly cast because someone anticipated she'd need to repeat her role as Peter Parker's mother in a beefier sequel we'll never see, yet only plays a brief part that could have been filled by any competent first-timer working for scale.

Whatever "Madame Web" was supposed to be once upon a time, or any of the wishful-thinking spinoffs that will never be made despite several seeds being planted, could only be better than the hodgepodge of hokum this dippy disaster is. Should these films keep flopping, the Powers That Be might consider a post-mortem process to figure out which bad decisions kept making "Madame Web" worse. Because how many times can grand plans for a new cinematic universe keep starting over from scratch when a stench as strong as "Madame Web" still hangs in the air?

Review Score: 35