Skip to main content

Outstanding. Now, let’s bite off all the heads and pile them up in the corner.

Venom
(2018)

(SPOILERS) A 29% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes can't be wrong, can it? To go by the number of one-star reviews Sony’s attempt to kick-start their own shred of the Marvel-verse has received, you’d think it was the new Battlefield Earth, or Highlander II: The Quickening. Fortunately, it's far from that level of ignominy. And while it’s also a considerable distance from showing the polish and assuredness of the official Disney movies, it nevertheless manages to establish its own crudely winning sense of identity. 

It's a movie, even shorn of an R rating amid some controversy – it secured a 15 in the UK, for "strong threat, horror, violence" but I can't recall much in the way of "sometimes bloody detail" – that one could scarcely imagine Kevin Feige overseeing, any more than the tone and content of the Deadpools would have appeared present and correct under the auspices of the Mouse House. The chief problem with the movie – besides some evident over-editing leading to occasional incoherence – is that the inspired choices are counterbalanced by some equally noticeable deficient ones.


Director Ruben Fleischer being the top of the list. Disney's employment of journeymen to steer their Marvel ships generally comes out in the wash of a house style, whereby few of them can go too far wrong. Sony has no such rigour or quality control. As such, having spent all their money on their star, and possessed of a serviceable screenplay (credited to Scott Rosenberg, Jeff Pinkner, Kelly Marcel and Will Beall), they leapt at the chance of engaging a top-flight director. No, they secured Fleischer. Who debuted with the likeable zomcom Zombieland, but let's not overstate its merits, particularly since his last big screen credit was the bereft Gangster Squad five years back (with a screenplay also from Beall). 


Fleischer’s subsequent diet of TV comedies hardly count as credentials for blockbuster action, and the resultant visuals are accordingly mostly lacklustre. Cinematographer Matthew Libatique has done some fine work in his time, not least with Darren Aronofosky, but Venom's has an uninspired, artificial look, complementing a director who doesn't really know how to use the frame effectively. One only has to look at the lumpen motorbike-drone chase, complete with glaring stunt double to recall that work this shoddy hasn't been touted in a major studio movie since, oh, probably Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. At times, I was put in mind of the deadly lack of energy imbued in the majority of John Carpenter's '90s movies.


Additionally, Fleischer appears to have little facility for his actors – not such a problem when all he's doing is letting them eat scenery, admittedly – and even less with CGI, a substantial problem when so much of the movie is relying on exactly that. One keeps seeing Venom compared to a '90s movie – in other words, pre the golden age of comic book adaptations we're currently swimming, or drowning, in depending on your point of view – and there's something to that. Very much so in terms of the quality of the effects. I note the budget is reported at $100m. If so, Sony has been relatively shrewd to keep costs down, and such price tag-consciousness would lend weight to the idea that they were thinking seriously about an R; this comes in between Fox's Deadpool and its sequel. 


The effects quality doesn't matter so much when you’re involved in a scene; when it's about the personality of the CGI creature, it's quite easy to forgive not really being able to buy into them as more than a collection of unconvincing pixels. A bigger issue is when they're pixels on pixels. The climactic fight between CGI Venom and CGI Riot, set against the backdrop of a CGI rocket, is a bigger turn off than the Disney movies' habitual recourse to CGI-predominant finales – in particular, The Incredible Hulk, albeit this is mercifully briefer – because at least the latter are intent on lending an air of verisimilitude. They also don't tend to cut their pictures to ribbons. 


During the early stages of Venom, mostly due to Fleischer's inert staging and lack of facility with the key relationships, the pace could do with picking up a notch (the rushed opening suggesting we'll be hitting the ground running, yet Venom doesn't become Venom until around the halfway mark). Later, things seem to happen randomly and without sufficient motivation; Eddie's dying from the effects of the symbiote, until it isn’t even mentioned again. He resolves to just get along with it, and it with him, in a manner that goes far beyond pat and convenient, such that Venom itself has to draw attention to its arbitrary motive for electing not to take over the world (first it professes that it’s "kind of a loser" on its planet; then, when Eddie doesn't buy this, it announces that it wants to stay on Earth because it likes Eddie, which rather suggests a less cuddly E.T.). 


The Predator a few weeks back also showed evidence of injudicious pruning. Venom isn't quite as badly affected because it retains a stronger personality, mostly thanks to a much stronger lead, but you do wonder what the purported longer cut looks like. I suspect more coherent, but also that the pacing suffers accordingly. Generally, though, the smaller and more contained the sequence, the better Fleischer is able to handle it; the initial attack by Drake's men, as Eddie "Venoms out" proper for the first time, is highly enjoyable. A later SWAT team version on a much grander scale, this time exiting Eddie's old workplace, is less accomplished.


Effects-wise, the Todd McFarlane-proportioned rendering of Venom is faithful to the comics, but can only look distractingly goofy on screen (at least, on an effects budget this size). Something only added to when Eddies complains to his heavy metal-loving neighbour and pulls a face straight out of The Mask. A significant (and scissored?) subplot concerning the Riot symbiote travelling back to the Life Foundation is suggestive of the likes of The Thing or The Hidden – although it’s Venom who gets the scene possessing a dog – but one wonders if the visuals might have been more effective if physical effects augmented by CGI had been used to achieve the creature(s) where possible.


Structurally, the movie is reasonably solid, wasting no time establishing the premise – like The Thing and Predator, it begins with the antagonist heading for Earth in a spaceship – and introducing human foe Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed, who needed more to work with if he was going to make the character motivationally interesting; Riot meanwhile, only established properly at a late stage, is only ever a cypher symbiote). Drake's been compared to Elon Musk, wholly, I suspect, because he has his own space craft. Unless Musk has a band of mercenaries going around putting the kibosh on anyone speaking out of turn… which would surely include Musk himself. I also saw no sign of Drake smoking weed.


A significant amount of time – much more than you'd credit, given how luridly larger-than-life the situations become – is spent introducing Eddie (Tom Hardy) and his relationship with Anne (Michelle Williams). Much of this is rather flat, not helped by the difficulty of buying into a hotshot DA being engaged to a stumblebum who sounds like a cross between Dustin Hoffman in Midnight Cowboy and Bobcat Goldthwait. Which raises questions about Hardy's choices; that someone with Eddie's comportment would be accepted as a successful investigative journalist and given his own TV show; that someone as beefy as Hardy could convince as a nerd, a nerd who rides around on a Ducatti Scrambler; that Eddie is written smarter than Hardy plays him. And that Hardy seems much more enthused by acting with himself than with Williams (as far as I can discern, the only reason she took the lacklustre role was the opportunity to appear with the actor). Or maybe the romance between Eddie and Venom is the whole point. They stay together at the end, after all. 


And yet, these drawbacks in no way diminish that Hardy, in both his incarnations of Eddie and Venom, is the movie's considerable trump card. Hardy's compared the extremes to Ren and Stimpy, which figures, as he’s clearly relishing the twisted relationship between Eddie and Venom, and taking every opportunity to milk laughs from it. If his Kane in The Dark Knight Rises had been half as much fun as Venom ("Eyes, lungs, pancreas. So many snacks, so little time"), he'd have been a Batman villain all-timer. Hardy doing possessed is good fun too (the scene in a restaurant in pursuit of Venom's particular dietary requirements is worthy of Martin Short). 


Once their rapport is established, the picture hits its version of a stride, and you're left eagerly awaiting their next exchange, and it invariably delivers. I said above that Venom's motivation for joining forces with Eddie is unconvincing; despite that, you're willing to buy it, and that's simply because Hardy's dual performance is so much fun that you believe they're having fun together and so are willing to making excuses for the logic gaps. Simply put, this movie wouldn't work without Hardy. He's the difference between an entertaining movie and a bad one, which makes the prospect of a sequel with a talented director on board, in tune with the potential, tantalising.


Williams is given a few moments to "justify" an actress of her stature taking on this role, but anything following Anne and Eddie's break up tends to be clumsily written and insufficient to establish her as more than the (ex-)girlfriend. The exception is the She-Venom scene, but that's CGI. Indeed, her sympathetic doctor boyfriend (Wayne Pére) probably has more presence as a character.


There's a protagonist arc of sorts, whereby asshole Eddie can't help himself and ruins his and Anne's careers, leading to him adjusting and "growing" as a person(s) by accepting his id – Venom – and so balancing out the passive-aggressive side that got him into so much trouble. But one couldn't kid oneself that there's any thematic depth here, certainly less than there was for Stanley Ipkiss (and that was a comedy). And Eddie's still lying to Anne at the end and having the not-so-little devil on his shoulder assure him he'll get her back (which has all sorts of creepy connotations, that I expect any sequel will expressly sidestep). 


The post-credits scene features Woody Harrelson in a red fright wig as Cletus Kassady, the alter ego of Carnage (offspring of Venom). Quite how this works (if he's bonded, why can't he just escape?) I don’t know, but I'd hoped for something a little more inventive from the Spidey-verse villains gallery than the prospect of two very similar adversaries battling it out (see Hulks and Iron Mans for how this gets boring fast).


No doubt some will – certainly, some have – take issue with the way Venom has been shorn of the integral nature of its Spidey source material in order for Sony to establish its cinematic universe… Which is fair enough. I think it works reasonably well on its own level, although it may become an issue if they wish to reintegrate Spider-Man into the story, once the Disney agreement is over and done with. And while there's no mistaking this for the understandable confidence of Marvel proper, or even the misplaced confidence of DC, or the plodding confidence of Fox, there's enough to see a future in Sony's Spidey-spinoff-verse, as long as they lead with the creative talent. 


Returning to the critics’ verdicts, it felt like Venom's fate was sealed before the movie came out; invariably, the best of the genre don't deserve the overwhelming praise lavished on them, while the worst (Justice League) aren't quite the turkeys they're made out to be. On that note, as long as Hardy's still in frame, I’d more than welcome a Venom 2.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Dude. You’re my hero and shit.

El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie (2019)
(SPOILERS) I was going to say I’d really like to see what Vince Gilligan has up his sleeve besidesBreaking Bad spinoffs. But then I saw that he had a short-lived series on CBS a few years back (Battle Creek). I guess things Breaking Bad-related ensure an easy greenlight, particularly from Netflix, for whom the original show was bread and butter in its take up as a streaming platform. There’s something slightly dispiriting about El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie, though. Not that Gilligan felt the need to return to Jesse Pinkman – although the legitimacy of that motive is debatable – but the desire to re-enter and re-inhabit the period of the show itself, as if he’s unable to move on from a near-universally feted achievement and has to continually exhume it and pick it apart.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

It’s amazing what you can do when you don’t have to look yourself in the mirror any more.

Hollow Man (2000)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven very acutely critiqued his own choices when he observed of Hollow Manit really is not me anymore. I think many other people could have done that… there might have been twenty directors in Hollywood who could have done that”. It isn’t such a wonder he returned to Europe, and to quality, for his subsequent films. If Memoirs of an Invisible Man failed to follow up on the mental side effects of being seen right through found in HG Wells’ novel and (especially) in James Whale’s film, all Hollow Man does is take that tack, with the consequence that the proceedings degenerate into a banal action slasher, but with a naked Bacon instead of a guy in a hockey mask.

It’s not every day you see a guy get his ass kicked on two continents – by himself.

Gemini Man (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ang Lee seems hellbent on sloughing down a technological cul-de-sac to the point of creative obscurity, in much the same way Robert Zemeckis enmired himself in the mirage of motion capture for a decade. Lee previously experimented with higher frame rates on Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, to the general aversion of those who saw it in its intended form – 48, 60 or 120 fps have generally gone down like a bag of cold sick, just ask Peter Jackson – and the complete indifference of most of the remaining audience, for whom the material held little lustre. Now he pretty much repeats that trick with Gemini Man. At best, it’s merely an “okay” film – not quite the bomb its Rotten Tomatoes score suggests – which, (as I saw it) stripped of its distracting frame rate and 3D, reveals itself as just about serviceable but afflicted by several insurmountable drawbacks.

I have a cow, but I hate bananas.

The Laundromat (2019)
(SPOILERS) Steven Soderbergh’s flair for cinematic mediocrity continues with this attempt at The Big Short-style topicality, taking aim at the Panama Papers but ending up with a mostly blunt satire, one eager to show how the offshore system negatively impacts the average – and also the not-so-average – person but at the expense of really digging in to how it facilitates the turning of the broader capitalist world (it is, after all based on Jake Bernstein’s Secrecy World: Inside the Panama Papers Investigation of Illicit Money Networks and the Global Elite).

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

What you do is very baller. You're very anarchist.

Lady Bird (2017)
(SPOILERS) You can see the Noah Baumbach influence on Lady Bird, Greta Gerwig’s directorial debut, with whom she collaborated on Frances Ha; an intimate, lo-fi, post-Woody Allen (as in, post-feted, respected Woody Allen) dramedy canvas that has traditionally been the New Yorker’s milieu. But as an adopted, spiritual New Yorker, I suspect Gerwig honourably qualifies, even as Lady Bird is a love letter/ nostalgia trip to her home city of Sacramento.

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.