Skip to main content

I think I’m Pablo Picasso!

Venom: Let There Be Carnage

(SPOILERS) I get the impression that, whatever it is stalwart Venom fans want from a Venom movie, this iteration isn’t it. The highlight here for me is absolutely the wacky, love-hate, buddy-movie antics of Tom Hardy and his symbiote alter. That was the best part of the original, before it locked into plot “progression” and teetered towards a climax where one CGI monster with gnarly teeth had at another CGI monster with gnarly teeth. And so it is for Venom: Let There Be Carnage. But cutting quicker to the chase.

Andy Serkis’ movie knows to be brief, although there are occasional moments where one wonders if something wasn’t lost on the cutting room floor (particularly during the climax – one moment Hardy’s Eddie Brock is lying on the ground after being beaten by Carnage, the next he’s Venom pinned beneath rubble). There’s a more studied darkness to Serkis’ sensibility than his lightweight predecessor Ruben Fleischer, and for all that he may have more potential as a director – Mowgli, certainly, was way better than the billion-grossing The Jungle Book – I’m not sure that necessarily helps Let There Be Carnage’s comic energy.

Serkis is no one’s idea of a virtuoso, and he’s never visibly or rhythmically quite in tune with co-producer, co-story deviser and co-star (with himself) Hardy’s verbal dexterity or the ongoing mayhem – a Sam Raimi would have been ideal. He gets the job done, and he brings a similarly dampened-down darkness found in Mowgli to the frame, rather like a less flamboyant or imaginative Tim Burton. He has no panache, basically, but the bits here that don’t involve a surfeit of symbiote(s) often look very good thanks to DP Robert Richardson.

The plot is the usual so-so “birth a villain and have him showdown with the hero, who has his own set of problems” formula, with a certain degree of disconnect in Kelly Marcel’s screenplay (Marcel wrote Bronson, Hardy’s breakout, and has her name on this year’s Cruella. But also Fifty Shades of Grey). The end of the first movie saw Woody’s Cletus Kasady invoking the symbiote he hadn’t yet become, rather confusingly, and in between, there’s a whole gap of Eddie having met with him that doesn’t really feel like it happened, it’s just reported as it did (complete with Stephen Graham in possibly his most thankless role ever as detective Patrick Mulligan).

Woody’s sixty, but I’m guessing he’s supposed to be about twenty years younger, at which he’s less ludicrous than some thanks to a variable rugmaker (Graham’s is consistently less convincing). In truth, the prologue scenes between young Cletus (Jack Bandeira) and Frances Barrison/Shriek (Olumide Olorunfemi, but as an adult Naomie Harris, actually in her forties) are much more compelling than anything that unfolds between them later, and wouldn’t have gone amiss in a more galvanised version of The New Mutants.

Woody’s fine, but he’s doing Mickey Knox-lite, as nothing could out-crazy Hardy, which creates a problem for villains in this series. Besides them all being variations on themselves, that is. The energy between the actors isn’t really complementary; you need someone who stands out sufficiently distinctly and challenges the lead, but Woody as Kletus is renta-villainy, while the relationship with Frances needed a discernible spark it lacks. Eddie and Mulligan fail to spar effectively either; the new additions aren’t quite a bust, but they don’t take off.

Hardy and Hardy have oomph, of course, and Venom’s unwavering line in variations of “Let me eat him!” doesn’t get old. Albeit, I don’t know if it’s simply getting into the part, but Tom’s looking extra shop-worn and shlubby here, like he spent the entire shoot in his trailer eating junk food. The uncomfortable triangle with Anne (Michelle Williams) and Dan (Reid Scott) is amusing too (the latter given some surprising heroics in the final reel). And while I’m making personal remarks about the leads, I don’t know quite what Williams has been doing to her face, but setting your sights on the rictus Nicole Kidman look is never a great plastic-surgical idea.

Venom and Eddie engage in a series of slapstick fights, culminating in the de rigueur sequel plotline where the hero divests himself of his powers (Superman 2, Spider-Man 2) only to reclaim them for the final fight. It makes for a neat bromance, and there’s an inspired scene when Venom shows up at a costume party rave as himself. As a screenplay, however, Let There Be Carnage is never more than going through the motions, lacking the ambition to be other than more of the same, only slightly more comfortable in its own skin with much of that same now being comedy (reportedly, Hardy was pushing that way while Fleischer was resisting first time out).

Lacking an immersion in Venom-lore, the significance of Mulligan’s eyes glowing at the end escaped me. Particularly since his last encounter was with Shriek. Turns out he’s going to be yet another symbiote (Toxin). Somehow, both Venoms have been largely entertaining despite both following the CGI monster third act folly of The Incredible Hulk.

Inevitably then, the credits scene teaser twist of multiverse-ness was probably the most invigorating moment in the movie. How that’s followed up on, who knows, but we’re sure to catch at least a glimpse in Spider-Man: No Way Home (we’ve got Doc Ock, Electro and Green Goblin to be getting on with, so there’s some way to go for a Sinister Six, and Kevin Feige, between bobbing for ultra-wokeness, has implied this scene isn’t the end of the interaction of worlds).

I’m inclined to suggest the formatting of Venom: Let There Be Carnage is too pedestrian to make a great play for meta-commentary. Infection, of course, is the predominate element of the premise, but rather like a Cronenberg affair, instead of weakening the victim, it makes them stronger… if you’re one of the few chosen, that is. Notably, the symbiote is deleterious to everyone else Venom piggybacks on, and even Kletus ultimately clashes with his personal pally on relationship grounds. So be wary of what you let into your bloodstream?

Venom 3, then? I’m not desperate to see Hardy rematched with Graham, to be honest. But Hardy and Holland? Yeah, I could see that working. And perhaps even beyond Spider-Man: No Way Home and into uncharted territory.

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

The Krishna died of a broken finger? I mean, is that a homicide?

Miami Blues (1990) (SPOILERS) If the ‘90s crime movie formally set out its stall in 1992 with Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs , another movie very quietly got in there first at the beginning of the decade. Miami Blues picked up admiring reviews but went otherwise unnoticed on release, and even now remains under-recognised. The tale of “blithe psychopath” Federick J. Frenger, Jr., the girl whose heart he breaks and the detetive sergeant on his trail, director George Armitage’s adaptation of Charles Willeford’s novel wears a pitch black sense of humour and manages the difficult juggling act of being genuinely touching with it. It’s a little gem of a movie, perfectly formed and concisely told, one that more than deserves to rub shoulders with the better-known entries in its genre. One of the defining characteristics of Willeford’s work, it has been suggested , is that it doesn’t really fit into the crime genre; he comes from an angle of character rather than plot or h

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

You tampered with the universe, my friend.

The Music of Chance (1993) (SPOILERS) You won’t find many adaptations of Paul Auster’s novels. Original screenplays, yes, a couple of which he has directed himself. Terry Gilliam has occasionally mentioned Mr. Vertigo as in development. It was in development in 1995 too, when Philip Haas and Auster intended to bring it to the screen. Which means Auster presumably approved of Haas’ work on The Music of Chance (he also cameos). That would be understandable, as it makes for a fine, ambiguous movie, pregnant with meaning yet offering no unequivocal answers, and one that makes several key departures from the book yet crucially maintains a mesmerising, slow-burn lure.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

People still talk about Pandapocalypse 2002.

Turning Red (2022) (SPOILERS) Those wags at Pixar, eh? Yes, the most – actually, the only – impressive thing about Turning Red is the four-tiered wordplay of its title. Thirteen-year-old Mei (Rosalie Chiang) finds herself turning into a large red panda at emotive moments. She is also, simultaneously, riding the crimson wave for the first time. Further, as a teenager, she characteristically suffers from acute embarrassment (mostly due to the actions of her domineering mother Ming Lee, voiced by Sandra Oh). And finally, of course, Turning Red can be seen diligently spreading communist doctrine left, right and centre. To any political sensibility tuning in to Disney+, basically (so ones with either considerable or zero resistance to woke). Take a guess which of these isn’t getting press in reference to the movie? And by a process of elimination is probably what it it’s really about (you know in the same way most Pixars, as far back as Toy Story and Monsters, Inc . can be given an insi