or, “The Silver Bowl of Dill-Flavoured Chips”: A spoiler-free mini movie review.
2 out of 5
“…there is a fear among studio executives…about some of the subject matter [of modern independent movies]. …everyone is going to films based on IP or something that’s very familiar, and that is the absolute antithesis of filmmaking…”
A lifetime ago, I made an uncouth script pitch for a cop movie to a university girlfriend, with its villain a serial rapist. She asked why it was so important to use rape as a plot device. “Because it sells!”
What I meant to say (retrospectively) was that, along with child peril & domestic abuse, rape elicits a powerful viewer response, which they want ‘avenged’ by the time the credits roll. That’s just one of the stupid things I said & did to send that relationship into free-fall, much like Marvel Studio’s stupid choices since “Avengers: Endgame” in 2019 – theirs’ being a lack of creative honour, and too much contextual juggling.
Irrespectively, Marvel productions still carry a professional-grade aesthetic, even if you don’t connect with them on a human level. But while there’s no literal rape in Thunderbolts*, it violated my other sensibilities.
My wife & I were watching “FBI: Most Wanted,” and she’s a lateral thinker: why are the good guys not wearing gloves when the bad guys have sarin gas? And I said inimitably, “It’s network TV: it’s supposed to be stupid.”
While this simple oversight could amount to a mere continuity error, creatives really do appreciate it when viewers take their projects seriously – consider actor & Marvel Television alumnus Ethan Hawke’s recent call for more “offensive” art.
The general furor over “Captain America 4” (aka. “CA4”) – aside from the foreboding that delays & reshoots purport – seems to be that the filmmakers didn’t take enough thematic chances. Superhero fantasy, including comics, is one way of making sense of topical issues, but, for my money, I’d had enough thinking for the week, and wanted a big-budget spectacle with as little logicism required.
For a Marvel outsider who doesn’t let canon get in the way of a good night’s rest, CA4 serves its purpose, in the mindless way I wanted when I watched it. Audiences haven’t seen The Hulk be The Hulk on-screen in almost a decade, whether that’s Hulk or Not-Hulk, and for a treatment that amounts to “a race to stop Harrison Ford from turning into Not-Hulk,” director Julius Onah plates palatable tension, a brisk pace, coherent action, and – best of all – payoff.
Onah’s chief accomplice is “The Annihilation of Fish” composer Laura Karpman, whose dynamic soundtrack timekeeps – as opposed to handicapping – the story. The sound design is fantastic overall, and the Spanish-speaking actors (Danny Ramirez; Giancarlo Esposito) actually get to speak Spanish – always a fun surprise.
As Thaddeus Ross is such a central character here, his recasting is bittersweet: the late William Hurt didn’t live long enough to get the honour of headlining, but Grandpa Harrison is a worthy replacement, overfilling his scenes with effortless gravitas. There’s even a pleasing “Akira” visual reference, which surely adds legitimacy to anything or anyone that pulls it off, particularly a curmudgeonly senior like Ford.
Captain America 4’s advertising isn’t misrepresentational, so why project onto it? In one brief shot, Ramirez is playing a crisp-looking version of Williams’ “Defender” on an old Motorola flip phone – on a screen only double the resolution of the original monochromatic Game Boy – and he’s acting like he’s enjoying it. It’s a studio movie: it’s supposed to be stupid.
Remember in “Back to the Future”, when Marty is auditioning for the Battle of the Bands and Huey Lewis tells him he’s “too darn loud?” So quiet & subdued 80% of “Kraven The Hunter” was, that I could clearly hear the shakey leg of the phobic teenager sitting in the row behind me with their 10-person family entourage. They wanted to be anywhere else, too.
Let’s draw the same comparisons every other review is: between this & Chris Nolan’s “Batman Begins”. While their narrative direction differs, Batman’s opening salvo is tightly edited, dynamically paced, and Hans Zimmer’s soundtrack effectively ‘mickey-mouses’ every scene.
After Kraven’s prologue (freely-available to view on YouTube), there’s a twenty-minute passage with no music, no action, and non-stop dialogue. Aaron Taylor-Johnson eventually bites someone’s cheek off in a fountain of CGI gore, but it segues to another long section with tedious exposition, and Aaron’s incessant fourth-wall mugging.
Legacy director Quentin Tarantino says there are no more movie stars in modern Hollywood, and Aaron is a good thesis. He’s handsome, charismatic, and clearly committed to the role (physically-speaking), but the self-awareness of his line readings betrays the serious tone of the rest of the picture – particularly in Russell Crowe & Alessandro Nivola’s sobering villains. A dozen buffalo are graphically killed by poachers, but all Aaron has for them are poster quips.
Kraven betrays its audience in more overt ways than merely contemptuous acting & a lack of trust. Poor pacing may be covered-up in post-production, but bad timing is entirely a director’s fault, and J.C. Chandor (“A Most Violent Year”) has no clue how to stage action for the mainstream. At one point, a phase-shifting antagonist appears behind someone to shoot them, but when we cut to the reveal, it’s a full beat before the trigger is pulled. Why wait so long? Why is a ten-second throwaway bar shootout halfway through framed clearer than a climactic scene in a monastery? Why is a CGI cutaway of Aaron jumping out a thirty-floor window the most exciting single sequence?
Kraven’s two hours are only passingly engaging, no one looks like they’re having a good time except Aaron (and at the viewer’s expense), and Chandor is more concerned with pretentious drama than Christmas entertainment for the masses. I wanted to like it, but Kraven is lifeless, and not loud enough.
Movie poster sourced from impawards.com.What do you think? Are you glad the Sony-verse of Spider-Man villain origin stories are over, for now? Do you think Aaron’s smugness will play better should he be hired as the next James Bond? Did you like Kraven’s CGI fuzz (including a tank of a lion, an inquisitive eagle, and a very hairy Russian bear) as much as my wife & I did? Leave your comments below, and Happy Holidays!
And any old creepazoid will make unsolicited comments about your appearance. The most riveting thing about “Venom 3” is the disconnect of seeing actress Juno Temple as an adult: she looks completely different from the little chubby-cheeked girl I remember from 2009’s “Year One” & 2011’s “Killer Joe”. But time moves perpetually forward for everyone and, eventually, we’ll all look the same in a box.
Nope, V3 isn’t great. As much as I was entertained by the other movies in the series (particularly Andy Serkis’ blisteringly-paced second instalment), it was contemptuous of the filmmakers here to assume viewers remember the mythos without a recap, or binge-watching both entries again beforehand.
In this way, V3’s values align more with the MCU than either of Sony’s other entries: a canon-heavy plot is inched along without adding anything significant to the continuity, and – while actor Tom Hardy’s time with the series is indeed over – things are left open for a fourth film, possibly with a female lead. That also means there’s ‘sexy’ symbiotes with boobs here, if you care. I didn’t.
Speaking of Hardy, I don’t remember his Eddie Brock being so stiff. As he’s a co-writer (along with writer/director Kelly Marcel, who penned the other two films), Hardy is probably just visually communicating how ‘in charge’ Venom is over Brock’s body. However, when paired with Eddie’s disquietude, Hardy’s live-action work in V3 degenerates into a mumbling, shuffling mess: he sounds like he’s having more fun with his Venom voice than he looks acting as Eddie. It’s probably the worst performance Tom has ever given.
I like V3’s comedy sidebar in Vegas, and the pacing is surprisingly good here also, mercifully ending at the perfect point – though it’s not as jet-propulsioned as V2. And Juno Temple is a treasure at any age.
But here’s a more-kosher critical opinion: Venom 3 was pulled out of the oven too early, or maybe shouldn’t have been made at all. How many times have I said that this year? Too many.
Poster sourced from impawards.com. What do you think? Are you a fan of Sony’s “Venom” series, or do you, too, think it’s a series of diminishing returns? Would you buy tickets to a fourth film led by live-action Juno Temple & Clark Backo? Are you disappointed there’s no word yet whether Venom will make an appearance alongside the MCU’s Spider-Man? Let us know in the comments below!
theory of a daskeman 