"Cooperate, and you just might survive."
An aspect of an environment that is as saturated as the
current superhero genre within cinema right now is that it can lead to more
unconventional projects being greenlit. Sony and producer Avi Arad have been so
eager to bring the character of Venom to the big screen that they interfered
with Sam Raimi’s plans for ‘Spider-Man 3’ to shoehorn the character into a
movie in which he did not belong. Ten years later though they are confident
enough in the label to present it to audiences. However, that is both a
blessing and a curse.
Journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is trying to take down
Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), the notorious founder of the Life Foundation that
has recently required a mysterious substance from a probe returning to earth.
While investigating one of Drake's experiments, Eddie's body merges with the
alien Venom leaving him with superhuman strength and power. Twisted, dark and fuelled
by rage, Venom tries to control the new and dangerous abilities that Eddie
finds so intoxicating.
It’s easy to look at a movie like ‘Venom’ and be
fundamentally confused over what precisely the filmmakers wanted to achieve. I
understand that the answer may be obvious in the broader sense as Sony want to
establish a strong foundation for their own superhero cinematic universe
assembled of the Marvel characters they retain the rights to use. But I mean
for the tone, style and thematic undercurrent of this singular vision that is ‘Venom’,
what was the intended goal? Because I’m genuinely confused as to what it
actually was.
To say that ‘Venom’ features some tonal and cognitive
dissonance would be an understatement. The film’s entire aesthetic seems
committed to a grittier and grounded story but the narrative repeatedly dives
into some incredibly outlandish and frankly bizarre sequences. Perhaps that is
exemplified best by how ‘Venom’ tries to characterise its protagonist. It
introduces Eddie Brock as a morally nuanced figure but then never utilises that
trait and instead delves into overblown action scenes and Tom Hardy’s awkward
pontificating as the film moves forward.
It’s not that either of those approaches are flawed but when
mashed together it feels as if ‘Venom’ has just as big a personality split as
the symbiotic relationship between Brock and Venom. That being said at least
the central character has the performance of Tom Hardy to provide connective
tissue, which Hardy does with all his scenery chewing glory. Hardy’s
expressionistic and volatile form throughout the film is what works to keep the
viewer engaged. For all of the flaws in ‘Venom’ it is at least interesting for
the most part and Hardy may be the main reason as to why. His sporadic interaction
with the titular Venom is also fascinating and makes for an intriguing dynamic.
However it is also a dynamic that feels like it has been cut
painfully short, particularly towards the end of where the second act used to
be but is now just the bridge between an extended first act and a rushed
climax. Rather than develop or explore the central personality conflict that
drives the narrative of ‘Venom’, the film has one half of that duo undergo a
personality shift with little to no explanation. Just as the dynamic between
Brock and Venom starts to appear interesting the film throws itself headlong
into what feels like an obligatory showdown with a somewhat contrived
antagonist.
That first act which I mentioned earlier, drags ‘Venom’ down
for a number of reasons. As I said it feels incredibly bloated in how it stalls
several times to establish the movie’s central premise. One particularly
annoying trait is how it devotes singular scenes that spoil the pacing early
on, and never really justify the emotional payoff later in the film. Making us
watch Brock run into side characters that will only ever make one more brief
appearance simply is not worth the time it takes to establish their
relationship. It's also overloaded with exposition that is almost entirely delivered through dialogue, which exists on its most basic functional level.
None of these structural issues complement the tone, nor
does Ruben Fliescher’s direction which seems just as aesthetically confused as
the screenplay. There are numerous scenes which seem too awkwardly staged to
work as a compelling drama but also played too seriously for me to buy into the
comedic routine. In other words there are plenty of times throughout ‘Venom’
which I found myself laughing, but many of them left me unsure as to whether
that was the intended response. It wants to find a middle ground between the
dark psychological implications of having your own mind and body infected with
the comedic fallout that such a shift in personality would produce, but instead
‘Venom’ treads unevenly between the two.
This clash of tones is only made more confusing when the
action scenes start to take hold of the film’s narrative. Though they contain a
certain energetic pulse to them and feature an occasionally inventive action
beat, they also feel muddled and messy. Fleischer keeps the action chaotic but
neglects to shed any clarity, and the result are set pieces that possess no sense
of geography to them. Too much of ‘Venom’ is spent trying to make out an all-black
figure in dimly lit environments fighting with an array of CGI meshes. Much
like the film it’s a confusing mess.
Despite some intriguing elements and a committed performance
from Hardy, ‘Venom’ is too tonally confused and structurally compromised to
work as a compelling entry in this genre.
No comments:
Post a Comment