Reviews by Movie Maniac

"Venom" is something of an unfortunate film that just so happens to not be incredibly dull and feature a big, gooey monster that the public loves because of this it seems to have gotten a pass from many people but certainly not from me. Though I don't revile it, the film certainly left me feeling like I'd wasted two hours of valuable time on something uncertain of itself and incredibly vacuous.

The movie deals with intrepid, but cowardly, reporter Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) who bonds with an alien parasite that was brought to earth by what basically amounts to an evil Elon Musk. It is, at it's core, an origin story that really just serves as a setup for sequels more than anything.

First things first, if you're expecting something loyal to the comics you won't find a scintilla of it here. That is absolutely fine by me so under no circumstances believe that painted my opinion of it. I actually think the Venom character in the comics is pretty much all show and no substance and could use some major retooling. Well, he is in fact reworked in this movie, it just so happens that this job is approached in the most generic way possible.

The movie's biggest issue is how shockingly predictable, bland, and dated it is. When the final credits rolled it all began to make sense. The entire time I was thinking "this is like an Avi Arad superhero movie" and, sure enough, he was a producer on this just like he was on the ham-fisted, weak, pre-MCU Marvel movie offerings of the early 2000s. The setups for future scenes are so obvious that when they happen they are robbed of any impact because, quite simply, you expected them the very moment they were so transparently hinted at. The humor is not only horrendously bad but already feels like it won't hold up by the end of the year. Hell, it does't hold up upon first viewing. Most, glaringly, the entire story arch is your run of the mill origin framework, complete with paper thin romantic interest and cookie cutter corporate villain.

Another huge issue with the film is its apparent lack of self-identity. At times it feels like it's a sci-fi film, at others like a horror film, sometimes it's a "wacky comedy", and doing a woeful job of putting all this mush together is the arching superhero movie framework. None of these styles ever gel entirely and the film goes from one to the other without much resolve to give any of them sufficient substance.

"Venom" is also an ugly film. The cinematography can't even be called bland as it's more washed out and lifeless and, since the mood doesn't match this aesthetic, it feels out of place. To add insult to injury, the effects in this movie are so obviously reined in as a cost-cutting measure that you kind of feel robbed having seen a movie called Venom but rarely ever seeing him. This could all work if they built up anticipation for Venom's appearance but the films scattershot nature and predictability only make you hope that Venom's arrival or sudden appearance will save you for the purgatory of non-descript "blah" that the film serves up.

I digress because the effects deserve a bit more criticism. This is a superhero film about a character that is incredibly visual. The least you could do if you're so hell bent on making the movie as generic as possible is offer up spectacular effects and action. Alas, they don't even bother with this. The bulk of the effects are the equivalent of early 2000's cheap CGI. In fact, I would say they're worse because they made zero effort to make them blend organically with their surroundings. Almost every effect looks poorly superimposed over the real locations or people. It never looks like Venom is IN Eddie Brock but more cheapl laid over him. When Venom is fully himself he just looks like a big, gooey mass of unrealistic slime that fights another bucket of ooze. These effects might of been impressive circa 2004. Now, they are utter garbage.

The character work in this movie is also vexing at times and downright phoned in at others. It's not that the actors are bad, it's that their characters are so weak that you feel like you're watching fluff. The only exception is Tom Hardy as Eddie Brock/Venom. If one thing kept me interested in this movie it's Hardy. Hardy is one of our best actors and I wish i could say that my interest in him was because he was the diamond in the rough of this flick, alas that is not the case. The reason i was so interested is because his portrayal of Brock is so confusingly, jarringly strange that you can't help but look on like you would as you pass a car accident. From the strange choice of accent to his intentional AND inadvertent comedic displays, Hardy remains interesting enough to make you hang around till the end. I wish that was praise but it's really not.

Ultimately, "Venom" is exactly what we've come to expect from from Sony. Superficial, low effort, generic nonsense meant to appease popcorn munchers with no investment in good or even entertaining movies. No R-Rating could of saved this mess because the flaws are inherent in it's script. I wish it was even slightly good enough to warrant a rewatch but it left me so empty that it won't even get that in the near future. "Venom" is the type of comic movie we've evolved from long ago and for good reason....this type of movie is just bad. 3/10

"Aquaman" was a hard sell from the beginning. Here we have a character that's been the butt of jokes for decades, is relatively unknown by the masses, and was only recently featured in movies that were controversial for their own reasons. Add to that the fact that this was widely understood to be something of a change of direction for the DC comic book movie universe and the expectations were stacked up against it. A massive box office take suggests that the experiment succeeded on some levels as audiences continued to flock to see the movie. I decided to bide my time.

Full disclosure: I absolutely loved what was offered up by the DCEU previous to this. Man of Steel, Bvs: Dawn of Justice, Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman, and, to a lesser extent, Justice League were all films I greatly enjoyed and had unifying themes that made them work as a cohesive whole in a different way than the MCU had shown us with their fantastic output. They were also gorgeously shot, exciting, and tonally coherent even when they had their own style. So, if you disliked those films you may not agree with what i have to say about Aquaman. Maybe, but rest assured that my judgment has nothing to do with what I thought about its predecessors.

You see, "Aquaman" seems to be a patchwork of styles that never quite manages to gel until its final act. Indeed, the film never seems quite sure what it's trying to be and, while you might briefly get wrapped up in the "cool" stuff, I just couldn't help getting knocked out of that blissful cinematic stupor that engaging movies put you in. More often than not, I kept on wondering why they were selling me one tone only to sell me another the next second. One second we're silly, the next we're dramatic (overly so), now we're into full action mode, now we're in a flashback, now we're on an adventure, now we have some predictable romance fluff, and so on.

"Aquaman" also suffers from embracing its roots a bit too strongly. In terms of visuals, the movie can only please longtime fans of the material as it doesn't shy away from even the most ludicrous of concepts. This actually works in its favor, surprisingly, as it makes it an all or nothing affair to watch. HOWEVER, it also takes on the somewhat melodramatic overtures of dialogue that comics are sometimes known for. This results in some pretty abominable exchanges packed with unnecessary exposition and overtures that sound more like high school fan fiction than realistic exchanges even among unrealistic characters as those in the film. There also a marked lack of transitional flow from its comedic aspects to its more serious ones that seemed jarring each time and, honestly, made me look at a lot of stuff as downright corny.

Speaking of transitional flow, things in this movie just kind of seem to happen. It is an incredibly fast-paced movie that would of benefited greatly from garnering some form of anticipation. Alas, most times you just find yourself onto the next thing and then the next and then the next. It's a literal onslaught of stuff that instead of taking you away on a roller coaster just makes you question more and more about certain things. "Wait, how is this guy able to alter Atlantean technology if he's just human? How'd they get in a plane so fast?" Stuff like that usually goes unquestioned in movies like this but this one gives so little meaning to the events that you can't help but wonder.

There are moments in "Aquaman" where they attempt to give you background that, honestly, would of been better in a previous film in the DCEU series so that it doesn't feel so incredibly shoe-horned into this already packed to gills endeavor. Mostly this is done to highlight the binding theme of destiny that the film somewhat haphazardly is held together by. Unfortunately, this also highlights how weak the character growth of Aquaman is. In the end, he always was what he was meant to be and not much changed in him other than he kinda knows it know and he can do a cool twirly move with his trident that really doesn't do much. It was vexing to see how this character was so underwhelmingly presented as one we could root for.

They tried, however. If i have to say one thing positive about the Aquaman character it's that Jason Momoa knows how to play him with a charming bravado that, at the very least, is fun to watch. HOWEVER, when that's all he's got in the bag some scenes just don't vibe with the portrayal. Still, I'll take that over the horribly wooden job Amber Heard does as Mera. Not only is she about as interesting as a calm lake she also is the most generic love interest imaginable. Their love-hate relationship is one we've seen a thousand times before only this time it seems like they went from one end to the other with absolutely no reason to. "I guess they're kissing now," I thought, flustered. The only more unnatural "romance" in a recent big-budget movie I've seen recently was in the Tom Cruise Mummy movie.

Other detractors: the equally underwhelming and horrendous soundtrack/score, some effects work that is far to unrealistic to enjoy, and its cumbersome second act.

So, is there anything good to say about the movie? Actually, yes.

The third act (from The Trench sequence forward) really comes together quite nicely and ended up making me not regret seeing the movie. Here a lot of the sloppy work from the previous acts tightens up and things seem to coalesce instead of "just being". There is also some impressive and exciting camera work, visuals, and character moments. In short, it's an exciting, and engaging portion of the film that ends quite well.

Also, much credit to Patrick Wilson who is consistently good throughout as the lead villain, King Orm and who actually has a decent character arc. It's worthy to note that the action set pieces in this are pretty damn spectacular and exciting to watch even during the films most ridiculous or unengaging portions. Costume design and the better visuals are a treat.

Overall, the film is a major step down from the previous DCEU films. I would call it a stumble but the box office disagrees, so what do I know? I really wanted to like Aquaman. I welcomed any changes as long as the results were good and I feel that it could of been a really fun movie if it would of taken more time to develop certain elements rather than splash them on the screen and move on to the next. Scattershot, unwieldy, and unsure despite a genuinely good ending, Aquaman gets a 5 out of 10 from me.

A fantastic ensemble cast gives us a peek at a time when the most disparaged people in American society were, ironically, responsible for its future generations. "The Help" is a drama about the willful ignorance of many and the self-realization of the subjugated few. It is about finding beauty in dark places and darkness in places where we expect light. Sounds heavy (and it is) but it is delivered in such a palatable, heartwarming, and eloquent fashion that the tragedy is trumped by the triumph.

What a beautiful movie this is on all levels. Heart-wrenching at times when it holds up a mirror to our checkered past (and present) with race issues but never cold and dour. Quite the contrary, in fact. The film is heartfelt and genuinely funny to the point that you marvel at how deftly it balances these elements with the deadly serious subject matter. One moment you'll laugh and the next you'll hold back tears. Even more impressive, it manages to be wholly entertaining while never losing its message in the experience.

It goes without saying that the cast would have to be absolutely wonderful to pull off what the film demands. Undoubtedly, they are the standout highlight of the film. Even then, Emma Stone, Viola Davis, and Octavia Spencer manage to shine above their colleagues as the heart of the affair and, rightfully so, the main leads. These ladies do such a wonderful job of doing that aforementioned balancing act when it comes to the material. Jessica Chastain is also notably lovable as the somewhat ditzy but open-minded and kind-hearted Celia Foote. And, lest we forget, Bryce Dallas Howard is perfectly detestable as the elitist Hilly Hobrook.

The set and costume design are gorgeously complimented by picturesque cinematography and apropos score and soundtrack which only rounds the picture out as a perfect package.

There is much to love and experience when watching "The Help". It stands as a stark reminder of a horrible past and how easy it might be for people in the present to excuse their shortcomings and overlook the plight of others. It's also an empowering experience for women of color and otherwise. Most notably, it shines as a beacon of hope in the face of great adversity. Absolutely love this film. 9/10

A paratrooper squad is dropped behind enemy lines to destroy a pivotal German communications tower in order to enable the oncoming D-Day attack. Things prove harder than they expected when they uncover diabolical Nazi experiments meant to bolster the German war machine. Action, thrills, suspense, and grue ensue.

"Overlord" is the definition of a balls-to-the-wall, nonstop, rip-roaring romp of a popcorn movie. If Hollywood churned out stuff like this instead of regurgitating Transformers movies then "leave your brain at the door", unabashedly "fun first" movies would actually be entertaining instead of a chore. This is not to insinuate that the movie is a vacuous bag of eye candy. No, just that the eye candy and mile a minute pacing are prioritized.

That being said, "Overlord" is also not a movie with a big message, dramatic heft, or loftier motives either. It quite literally is a movie that is intended to be consumed as a thrill ride. At that it succeeds in spades. The characters are thin, sure, but not anemic as they each embody a singular outstanding characteristic that enables the audience to quickly identify with them and cheer them along without any of the burden of extreme character involvement. There's a guy that's all business, there's a guy that's all heart, there's the reluctant softie, there's the badass chick, and, of course, the over the top baddie. And, you know what?, they work wonderfully because they fulfill those rolls expertly without dragging down the breakneck pace of the action.

Action, says I? Oh yes, that is the star of the show along with the gruesomely fascinating effects spectacle that accompanies it. Genuinely suspenseful moments are interspersed at just the right moments too, so the action never overwhelms or becomes numbing. Add to that the fascination of the forbidden sciences the bad guys are playing with and you are rarely, if ever, not thoroughly engaged.

Speaking of the bad guys, if there has ever been a group of more ideologically detestable people than the Nazis then I haven't heard of them. History's darkest hour has also become the source of the greatest movie villains ever. There is literally no reason to ever agree with them so it's always a pleasure to see them become canon fodder. Oh, and believe you me, there is much a Nazi thrown before the proverbial canon.

Yes, those with weak stomachs might wince at the bloodshed but nothing is overly grotesque. War isn't pretty, even when it's in the form of alternate history. Also not pretty: the creations of mad Nazi science that eventually plague our heroes. A fantastic combination of physical and computer generated effects make for a feast for the eyes that will please most people tired of having the screen flooded with overly processed effects work. This movie is a bridge for lovers of the old school makeup and proponents of the new stuff.

Almost video-game like in its pace, "Overlord" manages to be immersive by sheer nature of its "all or nothing" mentality. Buckle in, cause its a ride from the start to the end. Great fun! 9/10

The 2011 "Conan the Barbarian" is testament to why John Milius had every right to change the source material so much when he first brought the character to the big screen back in 1982 under the same title. Milius has long been lambasted by Conan loyalists for making a survivalist's version of Conan, more concerned with mirroring people and cultures our past than the sword and sorcery action morsels that Robert E. Howard wrote at spitfire rates.

Little they they consider that in doing so Milius imbued Conan with a personality that, if we're going to be honest, was severely lacking from the Cimmerian brute on paper. While the Conan adventures were fine piecemeal, if one were to read them back to back they suffered from repetitiveness and an over-dependence on action and tropes that Howard not only brought to the forefront but, at times, created himself.

Make no mistake, I'm a huge Conan fan and was delighted when the full versions of Howard's work became accessible not so long ago. Admittedly, I always wondered what a faithful version of Conan (or at least one extremely loyal to the spirit of the tales) would look like. That being said, I also have an undying love for Milius take on the character and world of Hyborea. So much so, that it remains one of my favorite movies to date.

I was very excited when I first heard that a new Conan movie was being made and that intentions were to make it more akin to the stories of old. Finally, a world were i could have my cake and eat it too! Alas, the red flags began going up relatively quick soon after it was announced.

Warning number one: It was being produced by notorious penny pincher Avi Lerner, a man renown for b-grade, low effort movies and a penchant for trying to get big names for bargain prices. Warning number two: He went through several directors (seemingly settling on Brett Ratner for a while which would of been a red flag of its own) until finally settling on Marcus Nispel. Nispel is basically known for failed originals and several remakes. Were it not for the success of his debut feature (also a remake) he would of long ago vanished.

However, stranger things have happened and my hopes weren't entirely dashed. Was it worth the wait?

In short, no. Not one bit.

I wish i could say the movie is a car crash in motion but that would give the impression that it could, at the very least, be remotely interesting in an alternative fashion. If i had to give a single praise to the movie it's that it does capture the relentless action, muscles and blood, damsel in distress being the target of some ancient evil, over the top locations and other tropes of Howard's work quite well but in doing so shows why the glaring faults in that selfsame work. Most glaring among those, substantial characters. Everyone in this movie is as razor thin an archetype as they could conjure up.

As it stands "Conan the Barbarian" is a paint by numbers version of the character. Everything a Howard reader would expect is there but it fails to feel relevant even when the story (anemic though it is) tells you it is. What's worse is that, in a bid to inject some life into this husk of a movie, the screenwriters just cribbed from the Milius classic and it served as a constant reminder of why that version was great and this one falls grossly short of the goal.

Someone not familiar with Howard's writing could easily say that the movie tries to make up for what it's lacking by pumping it full of action but Howard was guilty of the same. That being said, Howard was adept at creating vivid imagery. Nispel creates visual noise that's boring to look at.

It's not even worth getting into the badly staged scenes, the almost video game level effects, the horrendous props, and the lackluster score because it would suggest there is a coffin to slam nails into. No, there was no need for a coffin, this thing was not only dead on arrival, it was dust in the wind.

1.5/10

"From The Dark" is the little Irish film that could and by could I mean basically make a better version of "I Am Legend" than a multi-million dollar budget production did. To deny that this movie took much inspiration from the classic Richard Matheson tale is a fool's errand but they do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery so, for once, Matheson might not be spinning in his grave.

Indeed, much is borrowed in this endeavor. If I were to describe this movie in terms of other movies I'd say It's "I Am Legend" by way of "Rawhead Rex" with some "Nosferatu" visuals thrown in. This was both intriguing and alarming. At times, it sends up a red flag that had me cautiously watching with remote in hand in case i had to press stop. Alas, the moment never came and by the time the whole affair was over I felt quite endeared by what I had seen.

It starts generically enough with a couple taking the now tired "wrong turn" and getting lost only to come across the threat introduced in a prologue, a reawakened predator preserved in a peat bog. An ancient evil, in fact. The couple soon finds themselves fending the predator and it's victimized prey in an desolate farmhouse with scarce light as their only weapon.

The use of this device gives way to one of the film's strongest points, it's use of the dark to keep the creature mysterious and ominous at all times. And truly the choice to make it look like some descendant of Graf Orlok lends to not only the thematic structure but gives it the necessarily vicious blend of beast and man.

Much like the story it homages, the tale eventually finds our protagonist alone against a great evil and it is in the home stretch that everything really comes together in full. Up to then "From The Dark" suffers from some minor pacing issues as some elements are stretched a bit unnecessarily thin but it seems to roar back every time it comes close to losing your interest.

In the end, the good far outweighs the negative. Clever use of a plot device to hide the small budget does wonders for it, some shots and scenes are downright eerie or unsettling, and a simple and satisfying plot make it one of those sure to be small cult favorites.

"From The Dark" is not excellent but it is far from mediocre and nowhere near bad. It's a worthy addition to any horrorhound's library, especially if they enjoy something familiar, subtle, and obscure. 7/10

The New French Extremity movement in horror cinema brought us minted classics like "High Tension", "Inside", and "Martyrs" and while many struggled to find value among the pronounced visceral elements, others espoused their merits openly. The evolution of the subgenre eventually led to films like "RAW" which cemented its legacy as a legitimate art form rather than violence for violence's sake.

"Revenge" seems poised to join its compatriots as a memorable classic even as it gathers accolade after accolade from critics near and far but is it worthy of that status? The short answer is yes but, like the movie itself, not everything is as simple as it looks.

At first glance "Revenge" may give the impression that it's a beautifully mounted and shot riff on the controversial classic "I Spit On Your Grave";the plot is essentially identical: woman is violated and left for dead, revenge ensues. The gorgeous cinematography and rich, technicolor vibrancy of the picture wouldn't be enough to justify imitation or uncomfortable content, however. While films like the aforementioned seem empowering they really peddle in exploiting an issue for cheap thrills and cash. This is where "Revenge" takes its own distinct creative path.

There is an ulterior motive behind "Revenge" that is almost satirically weaved into the behavior and dialogue of its antagonists, a group of misogynist weekend warriors ranging from the smoothly deceitful, the indifferently complicit, and down to the implicitly violating. These villains are thinly veiled archetypes of rape culture that bare down on our unfortunate heroin even as the film presents her as the societal equivalent of "the girl that asked for it".

With its brazen, but artistic, use of violence, the film successfully takes the viewer from any semblance of social apologetic to an ardent spectator of justifiable retribution. In short, while not every man is guilty of perpetuating rape culture the film shows us how even the least involved can turn the tides by not embodying the attitudes of the villainous trio within the film. This perspective might rub some the wrong way or may be perceived as an SJW agenda (as the modern climate would be prone to dub it) but it's a valid criticism. Generally speaking, "rape bad" would be, folks.

That being said, the film doesn't let it's message or metaphors bog it down. Oh no, make no mistake, "Revenge" is a nasty film. It expertly ropes in dark humor and discomfort with sudden crescendos of spurting grue all while looking absolutely gorgeous. It almost seems incongruous at times. How can something so lush be so ghastly, after all?

The performances are fantastic, especially that of Matilda Lutz as the heroine, Jen. The music is "synth nightmare chic" and really knows when to build up the suspense alongside the visuals. The effects? Brutal and bloody.

All in all, this earns its place in the company of its peers. Do I feel it's as good as, say, "RAW"? No, not by a long shot but, believe me, it's no slouch. Check this one out, you won't regret it. 8/10

The Predator film franchise has often been a divisive one. People ardently defend or dismiss sequels and spin-offs as if they were the worst or best thing to come across their radar. Unfortunately, all this discussion is basically because everyone since the first film has tried to recapture that magic and fallen short, despite some great moments here and there.

Full disclosure, I love the first Predator film. It is not only a classic of the sci-fi genre but also a minted gem of action cinema. It is uncontested by any of it's successors to date. I used to have a great affection for "Predator 2" but, admittedly, it has not aged well, suffers from some silly situations, poor pacing, and sub-par writing/acting. Nevertheless it has some very iconic moments. The third film ("Predators") was seen as the red-headed stepchild of the lot by many fans but, honestly, I found it to be not only entertaining (despite some derivative elements) but way better than it's predecessor. I am, i know in the minority when by saying this. And so, I will continue to be in the minority by saying that "The Predator" is not as bad as it's been made out to be.

Make no mistake it still suffers from some major problems but ultimately it is such a brisk and satisfyingly action-packed flick that it's easy to overlook some of them (though not all). Do I feel that the film will hold up as time passes? No, it will most likely age badly but upon first viewing it won't prove utterly offensive to those not expecting a masterpiece which, let's be honest, we should be used to since the first sequel.

Much ballyhoo was made of certain elements, most notably the predator dogs and the plot element involving an autistic child perceived by the hunter aliens as a step up in evolution but in service of the film the concepts, though contrived or silly, work much better than they should. Acceptance of these will either make or break the film for you. Another big factor that plays in the same fashion is the comedy, mostly kept to the group of military outcasts facing the titular monster. This will either chime with you or it won't. Personally, having read the script, i was just relieved that the majority of their original lines were done away with but, ultimately, ended up kind of liking the ragtag team.

There are particular elements which are inexcusable, however. Most notably is the woeful over-dependence on CGI instead of physical effects. This would not be such a low blow if the effects were at the very least convincingly good but they are very obviously poor effects if not utterly abysmal. The final scene in the movie really made me groan. For all the brainless and flawed fun it had provided up to that moment, the film just decides to really stick it to you with the stupidest "reveal" imaginable that is relayed in the least convincing form ever. I felt like I had just watched a Saturday morning "to be continued" moment.

Character work is paper thin and somewhat generic and this might affect how much you care about the characters dependent more on taste than on quality but, as aforementioned, the steady clip of the movie kind of makes this easy to overlook. In addition, even if you don't mind the humor some of it will make your eyes roll on occasion. They could have liberally cut some of the truly ridiculous moments in this to the benefit of the film.

In the end, "The Predator" is a single serving, popcorn flick. Good for one go and maybe not much after. It is not a bad film so much as it is a mediocre film that manages to be fun despite its flaws. Even then, some moments and creative choices will tarnish any shine it manages to muster up. 6/10

"Venom" is something of an unfortunate film that just so happens to not be incredibly dull and feature a big, gooey monster that the public loves because of this it seems to have gotten a pass from many people but certainly not from me. Though I don't revile it, the film certainly left me feeling like I'd wasted two hours of valuable time on something uncertain of itself and incredibly vacuous.

The movie deals with intrepid, but cowardly, reporter Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) who bonds with an alien parasite that was brought to earth by what basically amounts to an evil Elon Musk. It is, at it's core, an origin story that really just serves as a setup for sequels more than anything.

First things first, if you're expecting something loyal to the comics you won't find a scintilla of it here. That is absolutely fine by me so under no circumstances believe that painted my opinion of it. I actually think the Venom character in the comics is pretty much all show and no substance and could use some major retooling. Well, he is in fact reworked in this movie, it just so happens that this job is approached in the most generic way possible.

The movie's biggest issue is how shockingly predictable, bland, and dated it is. When the final credits rolled it all began to make sense. The entire time I was thinking "this is like an Avi Arad superhero movie" and, sure enough, he was a producer on this just like he was on the ham-fisted, weak, pre-MCU Marvel movie offerings of the early 2000s. The setups for future scenes are so obvious that when they happen they are robbed of any impact because, quite simply, you expected them the very moment they were so transparently hinted at. The humor is not only horrendously bad but already feels like it won't hold up by the end of the year. Hell, it does't hold up upon first viewing. Most, glaringly, the entire story arch is your run of the mill origin framework, complete with paper thin romantic interest and cookie cutter corporate villain.

Another huge issue with the film is its apparent lack of self-identity. At times it feels like it's a sci-fi film, at others like a horror film, sometimes it's a "wacky comedy", and doing a woeful job of putting all this mush together is the arching superhero movie framework. None of these styles ever gel entirely and the film goes from one to the other without much resolve to give any of them sufficient substance.

"Venom" is also an ugly film. The cinematography can't even be called bland as it's more washed out and lifeless and, since the mood doesn't match this aesthetic, it feels out of place. To add insult to injury, the effects in this movie are so obviously reined in as a cost-cutting measure that you kind of feel robbed having seen a movie called Venom but rarely ever seeing him. This could all work if they built up anticipation for Venom's appearance but the films scattershot nature and predictability only make you hope that Venom's arrival or sudden appearance will save you for the purgatory of non-descript "blah" that the film serves up.

I digress because the effects deserve a bit more criticism. This is a superhero film about a character that is incredibly visual. The least you could do if you're so hell bent on making the movie as generic as possible is offer up spectacular effects and action. Alas, they don't even bother with this. The bulk of the effects are the equivalent of early 2000's cheap CGI. In fact, I would say they're worse because they made zero effort to make them blend organically with their surroundings. Almost every effect looks poorly superimposed over the real locations or people. It never looks like Venom is IN Eddie Brock but more cheapl laid over him. When Venom is fully himself he just looks like a big, gooey mass of unrealistic slime that fights another bucket of ooze. These effects might of been impressive circa 2004. Now, they are utter garbage.

The character work in this movie is also vexing at times and downright phoned in at others. It's not that the actors are bad, it's that their characters are so weak that you feel like you're watching fluff. The only exception is Tom Hardy as Eddie Brock/Venom. If one thing kept me interested in this movie it's Hardy. Hardy is one of our best actors and I wish i could say that my interest in him was because he was the diamond in the rough of this flick, alas that is not the case. The reason i was so interested is because his portrayal of Brock is so confusingly, jarringly strange that you can't help but look on like you would as you pass a car accident. From the strange choice of accent to his intentional AND inadvertent comedic displays, Hardy remains interesting enough to make you hang around till the end. I wish that was praise but it's really not.

Ultimately, "Venom" is exactly what we've come to expect from from Sony. Superficial, low effort, generic nonsense meant to appease popcorn munchers with no investment in good or even entertaining movies. No R-Rating could of saved this mess because the flaws are inherent in it's script. I wish it was even slightly good enough to warrant a rewatch but it left me so empty that it won't even get that in the near future. "Venom" is the type of comic movie we've evolved from long ago and for good reason....this type of movie is just bad. 3/10

"Venom" is something of an unfortunate film that just so happens to not be incredibly dull and feature a big, gooey monster that the public loves because of this it seems to have gotten a pass from many people but certainly not from me. Though I don't revile it, the film certainly left me feeling like I'd wasted two hours of valuable time on something uncertain of itself and incredibly vacuous.

The movie deals with intrepid, but cowardly, reporter Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) who bonds with an alien parasite that was brought to earth by what basically amounts to an evil Elon Musk. It is, at it's core, an origin story that really just serves as a setup for sequels more than anything.

First things first, if you're expecting something loyal to the comics you won't find a scintilla of it here. That is absolutely fine by me so under no circumstances believe that painted my opinion of it. I actually think the Venom character in the comics is pretty much all show and no substance and could use some major retooling. Well, he is in fact reworked in this movie, it just so happens that this job is approached in the most generic way possible.

The movie's biggest issue is how shockingly predictable, bland, and dated it is. When the final credits rolled it all began to make sense. The entire time I was thinking "this is like an Avi Arad superhero movie" and, sure enough, he was a producer on this just like he was on the ham-fisted, weak, pre-MCU Marvel movie offerings of the early 2000s. The setups for future scenes are so obvious that when they happen they are robbed of any impact because, quite simply, you expected them the very moment they were so transparently hinted at. The humor is not only horrendously bad but already feels like it won't hold up by the end of the year. Hell, it does't hold up upon first viewing. Most, glaringly, the entire story arch is your run of the mill origin framework, complete with paper thin romantic interest and cookie cutter corporate villain.

Another huge issue with the film is its apparent lack of self-identity. At times it feels like it's a sci-fi film, at others like a horror film, sometimes it's a "wacky comedy", and doing a woeful job of putting all this mush together is the arching superhero movie framework. None of these styles ever gel entirely and the film goes from one to the other without much resolve to give any of them sufficient substance.

"Venom" is also an ugly film. The cinematography can't even be called bland as it's more washed out and lifeless and, since the mood doesn't match this aesthetic, it feels out of place. To add insult to injury, the effects in this movie are so obviously reined in as a cost-cutting measure that you kind of feel robbed having seen a movie called Venom but rarely ever seeing him. This could all work if they built up anticipation for Venom's appearance but the films scattershot nature and predictability only make you hope that Venom's arrival or sudden appearance will save you for the purgatory of non-descript "blah" that the film serves up.

I digress because the effects deserve a bit more criticism. This is a superhero film about a character that is incredibly visual. The least you could do if you're so hell bent on making the movie as generic as possible is offer up spectacular effects and action. Alas, they don't even bother with this. The bulk of the effects are the equivalent of early 2000's cheap CGI. In fact, I would say they're worse because they made zero effort to make them blend organically with their surroundings. Almost every effect looks poorly superimposed over the real locations or people. It never looks like Venom is IN Eddie Brock but more cheapl laid over him. When Venom is fully himself he just looks like a big, gooey mass of unrealistic slime that fights another bucket of ooze. These effects might of been impressive circa 2004. Now, they are utter garbage.

The character work in this movie is also vexing at times and downright phoned in at others. It's not that the actors are bad, it's that their characters are so weak that you feel like you're watching fluff. The only exception is Tom Hardy as Eddie Brock/Venom. If one thing kept me interested in this movie it's Hardy. Hardy is one of our best actors and I wish i could say that my interest in him was because he was the diamond in the rough of this flick, alas that is not the case. The reason i was so interested is because his portrayal of Brock is so confusingly, jarringly strange that you can't help but look on like you would as you pass a car accident. From the strange choice of accent to his intentional AND inadvertent comedic displays, Hardy remains interesting enough to make you hang around till the end. I wish that was praise but it's really not.

Ultimately, "Venom" is exactly what we've come to expect from from Sony. Superficial, low effort, generic nonsense meant to appease popcorn munchers with no investment in good or even entertaining movies. No R-Rating could of saved this mess because the flaws are inherent in it's script. I wish it was even slightly good enough to warrant a rewatch but it left me so empty that it won't even get that in the near future. "Venom" is the type of comic movie we've evolved from long ago and for good reason....this type of movie is just bad. 3/10