Comedic chaos, twitchy lead snatch ‘Venom’ from jaws of total toxicity

In 2002, Sony revitalized the superhero film genre with Sam Raimi’s "Spider-Man." This was a world six years away from witnessing the birth of the intricately plotted Marvel Cinematic Universe and the elegant somberness of Christopher Nolan’s ‘The Dark Knight.’

Fans embraced Raimi’s theatrical vision of Peter Parker’s world, which featured a sort of earnest campiness that harkened back to the comic book days of old.

After a string of modestly profitable yet critically panned movies featuring Marvel characters, Sony enters the comic book film foray once again in 2018 with "Venom", headlined by Tom Hardy. 

"Venom" is Sony’s second shot at depicting the alien-infused anti-hero on the silver screen after pitting him against the webslinger in the abysmally reviewed ‘Spider-Man 3’. It also happens to be the first film in Sony’s own cinematic universe of Spider-Man characters — one that, interestingly enough, excludes the wall-crawler himself.

It’s easy to see why Sony picked Eddie Brock and his otherworldly partner to plant the seeds of their own shared continuity. Ever since Venom’s first full-length comic book appearance in 1988, he has evolved from being a single-minded supervillain to a more complex character, amassing a sizable fanbase in the process.

In his 30-year publication history, Venom went through different phases and changes, mainly to allow the character to step out from under the shadow of his nemesis. The very nature of the medium — writers handling specific comic book titles for limited periods of time — demands a certain degree of malleability from the characters themselves.

They are Venom. Images provided by Columbia Pictures.

Unfortunately, this malleability has been twisted into tonal dissonance and narrative incongruence the film, preventing the film’s components from fully bonding and maximizing the end product’s potential. Stuck in an awkward place between horror and heroics, ‘Venom’ features elements that work against each other. 

In many ways, it’s like a symbiote (or to use the proper term, symbiont) trying to bond with an incompatible host. For instance, the nature of Venom’s powers in the film effectively nullifies any sense of real danger; there is never any reason to fear for the protagonist’s safety, even during the climax. In a film where the hero has to overcome a tougher, meaner, and heavily weaponized version of himself, this is a major, major problem.

Speaking of which, it’s also hard not to question the wisdom of selecting an antagonist who looks so much like the lead character, especially since there are many other visually distinct foes in the source material to choose from. Why not, say, the lithe, leaf-colored Lasher, or the horrifying amalgam, Hybrid? Why pick Riot, who is essentially a palette swap of Venom?

The plot, while straightforward and easy to follow, heavily relies on illogical behavior and outcomes in order to progress. One also can’t help but feel but the cast, save for Hardy, was just coasting along, moving from scene to scene with minimal effort in order to keep audiences entertained long enough to stay for the two post-credits scenes.

Furthermore, for a film that does a lot of showing, "Venom" sure does a lot of telling, too. For example, the audience is meant to believe that Eddie Brock is one of the best and brightest investigative journalists in the world, yet his actions suggest otherwise. In fact, it is his glaring lack of a crucial journalistic tenet that serves as the impetus for his downward spiral, right at the very beginning of the film.

Fortunately, certain aspects of "Venom" save it from being a completely toxic mess.

Hardy's performance — as usual — is a highlight for the film.

For starters, Hardy's spastic and bizarre portrayal of Eddie Brock (complete with all the tics and mannerisms one would associate with a desperate and deeply troubled mind) effectively carries the entire film. Watching him struggle with his literal inner demon is, in itself, worth the price of admission.

The film’s general levity also made it a considerably enjoyable experience. The interactions between Eddie and Venom perfectly captured the character’s sick, twisted, and at times juvenile sense of humor. Considering how the film even pulls a couple of lines verbatim from the comic books, this isn’t entirely surprising.

"Venom" also utilizes CGI effectively, pouring the most effort into the scenes featuring Venom and Riot (though sometimes at the cost of less action-packed but nevertheless crucial scenes, where you can tell that only a small portion of their budget was allocated).

All in all, "Venom" certainly isn’t the box office poison that its, er, venomous critics have made it out to be. 

This symbiosis of super-powered sociopathy and a perforated plot is hardly the cinematic antidote Sony was hoping for, but at worst, it's a mess of scenes that depend heavily on CGI and the absence of logic, teetering on the edge of failure but (thankfully) planted firmly in forgettable, albeit amusing, mediocrity.

At best, it's a movie that perfectly reflects Venom's hard-edged insanity, with enough body horror, special effects, humor, and absurdity to provide a solid two-plus hours of entertainment.

For audiences with a taste for the simplistic, style-over-substance superhero slugfests of the early 2000s, "Venom" will be more than enough to satisfy their hunger. — AT, GMA News

"Venom" is currently playing in theaters nationwide.