There is a famous quote by Mark Strickson: “Good actors can save a bad script and make it bearable, but good actors can’t make a bad script good – they can just make it bearable.” This quote, for better or for worse, has a lot of weight, especially on the new film “Venom.”
One would think that after the endless amount of superhero films, there would be a precise formula that filmmakers would follow to take everyone’s favorite comic book characters and transfer them onto the silver screen. If anything, newer films like “Deadpool,” “Logan” and “Wonder Woman” all try a new and more refined take on the heroes than their previous attempts. However, one’s success doesn’t necessarily mean that it can be transferred over to another’s success. Though “Venom” isn’t the worst superhero movie out there, it is a film that really struggles. It strives to redefine a beloved anti-hero, but it falls short on an muddled screenplay, weak characters, terrible CGI and a vibe that says 1990s all over it.
The story follows San Francisco reporter Eddie Brock, played by Tom Hardy (“The Revenant”), as he unravels a very inhuman plot—using alien parasite creatures known as symbiotes to experiment on human subjects—all by one of the most innovative bioengineering companies, the Life Foundation. Eddie’s investigative journalism piece soon comes to a halt when he sneaks into the Life Foundation and gets attached to one of these symbiotes, becoming a giant black, sharp-toothed anti-hero with a mind of its own. Now he must find a way to rid himself of his venomous counterpart before it brings destruction to all of San Francisco.
What “Venom” does nail right on the head is Tom Hardy’s portrayal of Eddie Brock. Tom Hardy does a great job showing Eddie as a character who is deeply flawed, but yet so willing to make things right. Tom Hardy also lends his voice to Venom, with the hunky menacing creature acting almost as a complete opposite of Eddie. He is ruthless, vile and has a knack for crude jokes. Seeing this transformation between Eddie and Venom is really breathtaking; the character is well-written, and he plays out just like how the comics would show him as.
One of the film’s biggest shortcomings is its failed structure. It lacks any real pacing, with a lackluster first act that struggles to develop any of the characters other than Eddie Brock. The film jumps around a lot from scene to scene, and there seems to be some lack of continuity that makes the story even harder to like. The film was left with a giant gap when it comes to its antagonist Carlton Drake. played by Riz Ahmed (“Rogue One: A Star Wars Story”). Ahmed makes the character seem lifeless; every moment that he appears on screen is a missed opportunity for what could be a great antagonist with a sense of dread due to the loss of company name and his precious symbiotes.
An aspect that could have easily made the film more enjoyable and on par with the comics is that of its supposed tone. When the film was originally announced, one of its “wow factors” was how Director Ruben Fleischer was leaning for a hard R rating. Instead, fans get a PG-13 “Venom” that lacks any dark tone that the comics advertised and makes the film all about its anti-hero with crude jokes. With too much focus on Eddie as Venom, there is barely enough screen time for any other characters.
Underneath the gooey, dark plethora of underwhelming moments that “Venom” offers—its terribly structured storyline, it’s forgettable antagonist and its stale tone that reeks with a stench of misdirection all over it—“Venom” manages to latch onto viewers with a great character study of Eddie Brock with a praise performance by Tom Hardy. Though this film will surely not stick with fans forever and may well be lost in time due to the high frequency of other more enjoyable superhero films on the horizon, “Venom” surely sets itself up for what could be a redeeming sequel in the coming years.
2.5/5
