|
In other words, by the standards of the genre, while
Spider's Web doesn't have either a great plot or great nudity, is it pretty
solid in both departments, and is acted by actual, competent actors.
Baldwin and Wuhrer also co-produced.
|
| Tuna's notes in yellow:
This direct to vid erotic thriller was an
actual treat.
Kari Wuhrer is an investment analyst for a company that invests blind
trust funds, and finds herself up against a glass ceiling, and then
fired, for trying to take credit for her own idea. As the film opens, we
see her sitting topless at a computer chatting with her contact in Tokyo
about a pending stock deal, with her lover for the night waiting in the
background. We know immediately that we will be seeing a lot of skin
from Kari and that she is a sharp business woman. And all this is during
the opening credits. When she unceremoniously ushers out her flavor of
the night the next morning, we know she is not to be taken lightly.
She ends up teamed with Stephen Baldwin in a plot to steal $40M from his
rich father. I won't write a spoiler, but I will say that all of the
plot twists are well set up earlier in the film, and that an attentive
viewer will have a pretty good idea of what is going on, but they
maintain suspense to the last scene even for those who have figured it
all out early. Wuhrer can actually act, and Baldwin played his character
well. Some of the minor characters also did a good job.
I suspect this was shot on the cheap on Digital Video, but it looks very
good, and they did not attempt to push the capabilities of the camera
past what it could do. As regular readers know, thrillers turn me off
easily, with only one or two mistakes. The plot line here was
consistent, and just complex enough to keep me guessing and interested.
There was only one small line of dialogue that bothered me. When her
boss fires Wuhrer, he says that she has had her skirt in a twist since
she arrived. We all know the proper phrase is panties in a twist, bunch
or wad. Other than that obvious bowdlerization, I was able to sit back
and enjoy it.
This is not going to replace Body Heat as one of my favorite erotic
thrillers, but it made for a pleasant afternoon.
|
The
Critics Vote
|
The People
Vote ...
|
| IMDb
guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of
excellence, about like three and a half stars
from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm
watchability, about like two and a half stars
from the critics. The fives are generally not
worthwhile unless they are really your kind of
material, about like two stars from the critics.
Films under five are generally awful even if you
like that kind of film, equivalent to about one
and a half stars from the critics or less,
depending on just how far below five the rating
is. My own
guideline: A means the movie is so good it
will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not
good enough to win you over if you hate the
genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an
open mind about this type of film. C means it will only
appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover
appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you
like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if
you love the genre. F means that the film is not only
unappealing across-the-board, but technically
inept as well.
Based on this description,
Scoop says, "C as an erotic noir thriller. Not good enough to
cross over, but good enough if you like your nudity salted with a
watchable context. I liked it and I would have said C+, top of the line for the
genre, if there had been some full-frontal nudity".
Tuna says, "I have to give it a
C+. It has no crossover appeal, but the attention to detail in
the script, and better than usual acting, make it a good genre
effort."
|
|
