One day, if you are lucky, you will turn to your grandchild and say, “I once knew a person that saw MADAME WEB three times in its first week of release.” And that person would be… me. That’s right. I’ve seen Sony’s much ballyhooed flopola Madame Web three times now in just one week of release. And you know what, I kind of like it. I don’t think it is going to be a world-changing masterpiece, but it does a lot of things that comic book movies of its ilk have not done in a long time – some good and some bad but even some of those bad things are, in my opinion, interesting. So even though you might think it’s an awful film, I would argue that at least it’s fresh! And I, for one, LIKED that. A LOT. It has been a hot minute since I felt the need to write a full “In Defense Of” essay; not since the days of THE NEW MUTANTS (which you can read about HERE) and back in 2020 when I defended THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (HERE) to be precise. And that film shared a lot of the same low-pretension, siloed existence, B-movie qualities that helped endear me to MADAME WEB.
Don’t get me wrong. MADAME WEB, Sony Studios’ latest addition to their self-proclaimed spider-verse with previous entries including VENOM 1 and 2 as well as MORBIUS – and which may or may not be connected to the MCU, is not a great movie. But it is good enough, and by that I mean it is one I would love to watch at 3 AM on the local TV station between 90-second commercials for solar paneling. And films like that are becoming fewer and fewer. They are something you don’t see a lot of these days, and something I miss. Bad movie these days just don’t have B-movie pretensions anymore. They are instead classy $200M train wrecks with all the guard rails on them. They never go off the tracks, but they never go anywhere interesting either. Luckily, that is not the case with MADAME WEB. It manages to act both purposefully and non-purposefully to concoct one of the best studio “B-movies” in the last few years. But what are some of these things? What makes me think this film is worthy of long-form analysis when it has a 15% on Rotten Tomatoes? What might make you press play on Netflix when MADAME WEB eventually gets there? The plot, acting, casting, and direction are all done well but not in the ways that you might think. Rather they serve to maximize inefficiencies, as B-Movies do, instead of trying to solve them. Well, let’s dive in…
THE PLOT: A Crazy Plot Straight from a (Possibly Crazy) Fan’s Brain
MADAME WEB does not play it safe when it comes to the plot. Unlike many recent comic book film adaptations, MADAME WEB is not a word-for-word retelling of a comic storyline or even an MCU-type remix where some of the characters are turned upside-down though not far enough off the mark to offend anyone. Even Sony’s previous Spider-Verse films like MORBIUS and VENOM hewed closer to comic plots and characters – albeit in a rather lazy way. Instead, this is a crazy prequel to stories both well-known and not. It is something written by a fan saying, “Look, I know these characters, and I am going to throw them away, toss them in the trash, light them on fire, and then write the screenplay with their ashes. In essence, they will still be there, however, not like you’ve ever seen them.” It is a screenplay written by a fan, but a crazy, possibly delusional fan (hey that’s not being judgmental, this is the kind of story I would want to write – and the kind of original story that might appear in comic book form). Hear me out…
Almost two years ago, I speculated about what the plot of MADAME WEB might be HERE. Although I prognosticated correctly on some of the characters involved and on Dakota Johnson playing a Julia Carpenter-esque version of Cassandra Web, the actual plot of the film is really something different. REALLY DIFFERENT. The film’s plot functions like a prequel version of the “Gathering of Five” storyline (something speculated on in that post from two years ago) where Cassie Web as Madame Web, with powers fully vested, is now working with different versions of the Spider-Women. These versions include Mattie Franklin (played by Celeste O’Conner in this film) and a few others not in this film. Anya Corazon (played by Isabela Merced) and Julia Carpenter (played by Sydney Sweeney) called here Julia Cornwall in this film, are swapped in place of other Spider-Women from “The Gathering of Five,” most notably Charlotte Witter (an interesting character that I thought Sydney Sweeney would be perfect for).
In the “Gathering of Five”, Madame Web systematically turns on each of the three Spider-Women, using them to retrieve totems to achieve immortality (and remedy her visual blindness) through a ritual that she completes with Norman Osborne and causing the serious injury of a few of them. That is neither here nor there, but the film sets up those foundational relationships. And “The Gathering of Five” could make a fantastic sequel for MADAME WEB (that will only ever exist in my brain). It also doesn’t stop there as a prequel as it tells the story of the birth of the Spider-MAN himself, Peter Parker (without ever naming him). Its antagonist is Ezekiel Sims, a character that in the comics inherits spider-powers from a magical totem and who exists in the moral gray. In the comics, Ezekiel has had limited interaction with Madame Web. In fact, he is a character who eventually had a “face” turn and became a “good guy” operating as a member of Web Corps and who protected Peter Parker numerous times and worked with other Spider-Women like Cindy Moon aka Silk.
In MADAME WEB, Ezekiel is a man who has inherited spider powers from a special possibly magical spider in the Peruvian Amazon that powers “Las Aranas” – a community of forest-dwellers who are imbued with Spider-Man-esque powers and who are actually related to Anya Corazon in the comics (though mysteriously not in this film at all). Anyway, Ezekiel has a premonition that the three Spider-Women, Mattie Franklin, Julia Cornwall, and Anya Corazon (none of whom have powers yet) will eventually one day team up and kill him (when they do have powers and costumes). Oh yeah, I forgot to say that Cassie Web’s mother was killed by Ezekiel when she was working in the Peruvian Amazon and found the magical spider that Ezekiel steals and which eventually gives Ezekiel his powers (though Cassie does not know this until way later in the film’s plot). Cassie eventually begins to manifest the power of precognition (given to her when Las Aranas saved her after her pregnant mother was shot by Ezekiel). One of Cassie’s first and most powerful premonitions deals with Ezekiel attacking the three future Spider-Women on a train, and Cassie steps in (for once in her life), deciding to give a crap about other people when she realizes she can change the future.
THE SCREENPLAY: A Screenplay That (Maybe Unintentionally) Takes Chances With Its Protagonist
The screenplay for MADAME WEB, like so many parts of the film, has been receiving a lot of grief online, including one of its authors being the subject of a low-key meme which raised the question “how do some of these men keep getting work?” when it was discovered that screenwriter Matt Sazama also authored THE LAST WITCH HUNT, MORBIUS (which I also kind of liked though not nearly as much), and some other clunkers. But I like some of the weird (mostly) character turns that this film takes – especially with respect to its lead Cassie Web (played with a knowing wink by Dakota Johnson – more on that in a second). Early on in the film, Cassie remarks to her best friend and partner, Ben Parker (yes THAT Ben Parker), after he invites her to a baby shower, “Oh come on, you know we hate family stuff.” After he pressures her again, she responds, “I like to keep my plans open, if I want to go see a movie or walk my dog or something (she does not have a dog btw).”
This is the kind of honest, relatable and (to me, at least) hilarious character moment that you don’t see often in more prestige films, let alone something destined for the dollar house. There are other moments too. A child gifts a drawing of their family (of all the things!) to Cassie Web after she saves one of them. Cassie refuses it, to which Ben remarks, “just take the picture” (I’m telling you we are getting close to DARKMAN “just taking the f*cking elephant” territory). When Cassie finally takes it, she shoots back at Ben, “it’s cardboard, I can’t even fold it or anything.” Late in the film, the three future Spider-Women who have been hiding out with Ben Parker and Peter Parker’s mom (yes that Peter Parker) are goofing out and Ben Parker (played by Adam Scott) scolds them frustratingly, and it is the most real bit of frustration that I have seen on screen in some time. I think I laughed all three times I watched the movie. I don’t have the actual quote so you’ll just have to trust me on the vibe.
THE DIRECTION: SJ Clarkson As A DePalma-esque Filmmaker
Clarkson is the director of MADAME WEB (and if credits are to be believed, also one of the screenplay’s authors). SJ Clarkson has directed some of the best episodes of THE DEFENDERS (a show which visually and tonally shares a lot of similarities to MADAME WEB), SUCCESSION, the underrated BANSHEE on the defunct Cinemax, and Netflix’s great ANATOMY OF A SCANDAL. I think it is both her way with actors in smaller moments (on full display in her TV work) but also in staging larger action in bigger moments that helped me love this movie. A lot of the former hopefully comes through in my writing on the dialogue and characters, and it is rather the latter quality that I would like to focus on here. Clarkson has taken a DePalma-esque approach to the action sequences here, putting claustrophobia on full display here using both the terror of empty space and the hell of confinement. And these qualities were heightened in a recent SCREEN X showing of the film that I attended. There are six, maybe seven, action sequences in this film and four big ones: the fire at the fireworks factory, the train sequence below Grand Central Station, the assault at the diner, and the finale at the fireworks factory (yes, this film is so low-budget they use the same location twice and try to pass it off as a fortunate moment for the protagonist, but to me, that added to the charm).
In each sequence, Clarkson uses long lenses and deliberate mis en scene to showcase what isn’t there – the terror that lies just off-screen. In the first, Fire Captain, played by Mike Epps, is ploughed through by a truck about 20M behind Cassie as she walks toward camera. In the train sequence, Cassie is terrorized by premonitions on a relatively empty train where neither victim not villain has shown up. Instead she is bothered by passing passengers in the barren car as she tries to focus. The sequence has a dreamlike almost slow-motion quality to it. In the diner, well not as ably staged as the previous two, there is a “nowhere to escape ” quality to Cassie’s premonition. When she rescues her charges, she does so by literally breaking through a wall in the diner with her car, violating the physical enclosure in totality. In the final sequence, a relatively open space begins to get hemmed in by the explosives that slowly dismantle it, sending debris towards and around the protagonists as if the rooftop arena is slowly closing in. All sequences are handled ably, although the train sequence is the real coup de gras here, and show Clarkson’s ability to pull something off on a low budget that looks better and plays with a more realistic tone than anything in Phase 4 of the MCU – which when it comes to action, has been absolutely abysmal.
THE SETTING: Aughties Nostalgia In A Siloed Continuity
MADAME WEB is set in 2003, a quality that has prompted question marks from critics. Though this was done to (allegedly) tie in Andrew Garfield or Tom Holland’s Spider-Man into this continuity, that plan was eventually shuttled as it seems the film cannot use Peter Parker or even Aunt May’s names and Clarkson has said that the film takes place in its own continuity outside either the Sony VENOM-verse or the MCU. I liked this because I wasn’t constantly thinking about the Sinister Six implications, whether there would be a credit sequence, or how Morbius would feel about the Las Aranas people of the amazon. The film was free to stand (or fall) on its own and in its own world. And that world happened to be the year 2003. Sure, I love the aughts, it is my personal favorite decade. I was still in my 20s, in school, and having fun. But why is that important here?
First of all, it means that things central to the plot like post 9-11 surveillance and the lack of cell phones or GPS in cars can make the plot gel a little bit more but it also functions as a way to spiritually harken back to a time when not every comic book film needed to be a trailer for the next one. But I also (and again this may be a personal thing) loved the movie’s 2003 aesthetic as it showcased the music and the fashions of the time. Each of the three future Spider-Women give their own spin (forgive the pun) on the fashions of the aughties: Mattie Franklin’s hip hop skater, Julia’s school girl, and Anya Corazon’s urban nerd. All three work and are just separate but also grounded enough to remind us of the time without feeling like an SNL sketch. The needle drops were fun without being too inventive (perfect for the speed of this movie): Britney Spears, The Cranberries.
THE ACTOR: Dakota Johnson Knows What Movie This Is
Dakota Johnson is a talented actress who really has yet to find the role that would give her a critical gracenote to put her up there with the likes of Emma Stone or Margot Robbie. The fact that she’s the daughter of Don Johnson does not help as she also gets an undeserved nepo-baby rap from the Twitter mob. But that’s unfair. She has a real comedic understanding that I think few are prepared to recognize. This is partially because her first notable role was in the FIFTY SHADES OF GREY trilogy – a blessing and a curse, surely – but which put the focus on other parts of her acting oeuvre (though her comedy skills were also on display in this trilogy as well – if you really watched).
Dakota knows that in this film, in this world, if she overplays Cassie (like someone in the MCU might) it is going to come off as too unlikable or too glib and maybe both. Instead, she plays Cassie as someone who is having just as much trouble reckoning with her gifts and her situation as audience members are with the sometimes convoluted plot. This allows people like me (who might otherwise be more critical) to instead to accept the overall narrative. And it’s not just the big notes that she underplays. It’s the small ones too. Cassie’s response to a guy who asks her three times (once in a premonition) if he is on the right train, “I don’t know, man,” is just something that has to be seen to realize how great of a blow-off it is. It is effortless and yet also completely justified and believable. This isn’t an MCU hero; this is me or you leaving work at 6 PM after a long day of filing who just does not want to deal with this sh*t!
THE SUPPORTING ACTORS: The Chemistry of the Three Female Supporting Leads
When Cassie first collects the trio of future Spider-Women that she must deliver from the clutches of villain Ezekiel Sims, they begin to bicker, to which Julia Cornwall (ne: Carpenter) remarks, “please let’s not fight.”, it’s a moment that always makes me laugh. It is not a great line but it is, like Cassie’s previous admission about her family, a true one. Sydney Sweeney’s ability to take the gas off the delivery really helps sell her character as the aloof but loveable member of the trio. When Julia later rescues Cassie from the East River, it is a moment well earned and one in which I, at least, cheered (yeah that’s right I CHEERED IN MADAME WEB). Isabela Merced as Anya Corazon seems to have a similar disposition to her character as Dakota Johnson did to Cassie Web.
By that I mean that Anya’s somewhat incredulous attitude helps to sell lines like “why does science matter?” after Mattie Franklin questions the importance of her knowledge of frictional based climbing in humans when villain Ezekiel Sims is clearly defying it. Maddie Franklin is the “bad girl” of the trio and has a knack for pushing the other two into dangerous situations when she shouldn’t. But it is her catchphrase, “now you’re just showing off” that really defines the film – for better or worse.
THE VILLAIN: A Villain Straight Out of Mario Bava
Now Tahar Rahim’s “take” on villain Ezekiel Sims has been getting a lot of hate – almost entirely for the heavy use of ADR for all of his lines and that may or may not be his actual voice. I liked the effect. It made an otherwise unbelievable villain that would have felt too grounded feel like someone out of a film by Mario Bava or even a Sergio Leone western. I think Sims has some of the worst lines of the film but the fact that they are delivered in this over the top, weirdly accented voice gives them a psychological disconnect for grindhouse friendly viewers like me. I can give a pass on the dialogue if Rahim is able to sell the rest of the package – and he does for the most part. He’s physically intimidating and in my opinion looks great and menacing when he is attacking. The film helps this by giving him a suit that looks like a proto-version of Andrew Garfield’s suit from THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN (2012) but also letting him walk around in his more comic accurate costume which is basically just a suit (as in blazer and trousers) with bare feet and hands (giving him maximum foot and hand friction as Anya Corazon mentions).
IN CONCLUSION: Maybe We Just Don’t Like B-Movies Anymore…
Moreover, it is a conglomeration of both the intentional with the unintentional, diegetic and non-diegetic choices from the actors and director that combine to create a superior B-movie. But maybe the poor rotten tomato score points to a greater issue. Maybe, as a movie-going society, we can no longer appreciate a good (or bad) B-movie. Everything has to be perfect or at least demonstrate an aspiration to perfection (see many recent MCU films that sucked but whose editing was so rigorously tested and screenplays vetted by studio executives and money thrown at effects that they had no B-movie value). There is no longer room for where the participating artists realize they are working with sub-optimal material but collectively make the best of it, both intentionally or unintentionally – something that characterized plenty of film in the 70-oughts. And that is too bad. There are plenty of truths about life and authentic human interactions that bubble to the surface, again intentionally and unintentionally, in a B-movie like MADAME WEB that get vetted out of the $200M+ films that dominate movie releases these days. As a lover of this type of film, I am always going to go to bat for a film MADAME WEB, and whether you think this is a fool’s errand worse than the film itself or something that is a valuable essay (much like your take on the film itself) is up to you.
No Scoops Club 