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…”
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!
“Madame Web” is way more watchable than what has been suggested. Omitting the lack of hype, subdued marketing, and languorous comments from its lead star, the movie is mindless, low-impact entertainment, thankfully devoid of any Marvel movie baggage, and anchored by a solid leading lady who has nothing to be ashamed of.
To casual viewers, director SJ Clarkson – a TV veteran whom this is their first major feature – may seem like they’re playing the filmmaking side of things too safe, but I found the frame mercifully non-convoluted with the excess texture that drags most modern superhero movies down for me. In place of your effects-laden Marvel “extravaganza”, Madame Web’s shot structure & editing suggest themes of time & perspective in a refreshingly grounded, fluid, Mike Figgis-esque way (except perhaps including more single CCTV shots). All I was really left wanting was less cutting to the reaction, rather than letting the movement breathe, in the action scenes.
The obvious difference of opinion will be over Dakota Johnson’s insouciant performance. In the Cineplex pre-show, she says she took the role because she was interested in the idea of a woman “whose superpower is her mind.” Johnson’s last big gig was the “Fifty Shades” trilogy, and Cassandra Webb is another empowering role ripe for a feminist performer to tackle. Here, with her strong, self-sufficient interpretation – and looking good with her long, dark hair, red leather jacket, and Levis – Johnson is poised to become some little girl’s role model and a pre-pubescent male comic book film fan’s first female fantasy.
The film is nimbly paced and ends at the perfect point, except perhaps by five minutes, with an epilogue that eludes logic. Sony’s live-action Spider-verse expansion might not happen if Madame Web doesn’t gain more traction through streaming, but the climax isn’t clear enough to foreshadow everything the film throws at us visually in that final scene. It looks ridiculous, but is probably comic-book accurate.
4 out of 5
Poster sourced from impawards.com. What do you think? Was Johnson the right casting choice, or did Cassie need to be played by someone with more range? What about Emma Roberts? Considering her minor supporting role here, does an alternate timeline exist where Roberts & Johnson switch characters? Or are you one of the millions on the bandwagon ragging on the poor movie at the moment and you think I must have some ulterior motive for a positive review? Let me know in the comments below!
theory of a daskeman 