After ten years of hard work in the Marvel era, fans of superhero movies with a little common sense will see that today’s superhero movies have begun to actively seek artistic attributes and personal expression outside the traditional "hero with a thousand faces" narrative framework. : Under the R-level scale, "Wolverine 3" can bring more adult content and depth, "Deadpool" can make the comic characters' shit and fart come to the screen; and under the PG-13 rating, there is also "Wonder Woman" Xia, “Guardians of the Galaxy,” and “Black Panther” are typical representatives that give full play to the charm of the original text and organically combine with contemporary elements.
So, will a similar trend happen to "Venom"?
Before answering this question, "Venom" has an important obstacle to solve: Sony Columbia.
In the past 20 years, with the expansion of CG blockbusters, the Hollywood movie market has undergone earth-shaking changes: in the 1990s, the market for romantic comedies and cop action movies that were good at fighting big with small ones shrank sharply, science fiction movies From the philosophy department to the visual department, it even degenerates into the weak background of B-level action movies; and the new growth point of the market is the rapid rise of young (fantasy) movies in the post-Harry Potter era, which focuses on IP Adapted from comics/pop novels. But because of an overly conservative creative strategy, Sony Columbia missed the outlet. Even in the last 5 years, the resurgence of sci-fi movies and modern action movies has been perfectly missed by Sony.
And in the development and control of IP, it has never been Sony's strong point-the only giant cash cow. After 007 changed hands, Sony has always lacked true heavyweight movies, and has been fishing in the middle-cost fantasy movies for a long time. Since movies are not Sony’s main business, to some extent, this can be regarded as conservative treatment; but in other words, this is a lack of insight.
If this were not the case, there would be no situation in which "Spider-Man" was made the best comic film of the pre-Marvel era, "The Amazing Spider-Man" was made to death, and the villain universe that had been planned for many years would be delayed again and again.
In Sony's hands, "Spider-Man" is the "X-Men" that has repeatedly failed: 20th Century Fox can at least successfully climb out of the pit of "X-Men: Wolverine", but Sony's "First Where are "War" and "Reverse the Future"?
At least one thing is certain, "Venom", which is more than enough, is still a long way from saving Sony's Spider-Man universe. Because of the vigor shown in the first trailer, in the subsequent release of the material, it gradually disappeared in the same PG-13 grade as the mud at a speed visible to the naked eye.
"Venom" is not bad, but it is not much better-this is not because of the taste of the creators, but mainly because of Sony's frustration in production. As one of Marvel's most iconic characters, "Venom" could have become the second "Deadpool": an anti-hero image that is powerful, righteous and evil, but also has a weird sense of humor and a sense of justice. But for obvious reasons, in order to interact with the harmless Marvel Spider-Man in the future, the film has a substantial self-castration in its creation-the final result is to adopt a very standardized, Marvel-style The origin story has also been reduced from the potential "Deadpool" to the level of "Ant-Man".
But in terms of the specific form of comedy, "Venom" was originally more thoughtful than any recent MCU movie-this is naturally the credit of "Zombie Land" director Ruben Frescher, but also with Sony Years of hard work in comedy movies have a certain relationship, after all, many screenwriters of "Venom" have had experience in writing Sony comedies. In the design of comedy, you can see the shadow of "Unknown Army" in 1981 and "Wrong Body" in 1984, and Tom Hardy also added a large number of physical performances to the characters to strengthen the comedy effect. One of the most successful examples is when the protagonist Eddie Bullock first realized the (unwanted) new ability in the apartment (this scene also appeared repeatedly in many trailers).
However, when the movie began to continue to output in (night) action scenes, "Venom" began to show a lot of shortcomings. What needs to be admitted is that the PG-13 classification greatly limits the expressiveness of action scenes. Although there are a large number of gunfights and action scenes, humans and animals are harmless and do not shed blood. As action dramas gradually escalated in scale, it became increasingly impossible to connect emotions with vision.
In short, it's the darker, darker, and slimier Marvel-style cartoon "wrestling".
But this does not mean that "Venom" is not worth watching-at least by the standards of "the foundation film of the cinematic universe", "Venom" is much better than the "New Mummy" like The Walking Dead in terms of viewing. , And on a par with the 2008 "Invincible Hulk". Similar to "Invincible Hulk", "Venom" is also on the unattractive script, and the slightly abusive CG special effects, almost relying on the enthusiasm and devotion of several powerful star actors, it adds some to the movie. Visibility. Compared with Michelle Williams in the "rest period", Tom Hardy obviously spent more thoughts on this role. His "Evil Possession" performance in "Venom" is no weaker than "The Dark Knight Rises", "Locke" and "Legend of the Underworld".
Recalling Tom Cruise, who turned "The New Mummy" from an adventure movie into a running trailer, even if he breaks a foot, it is difficult to really pull the movie out of the mud.
But what is commendable is that another "Tom" did it.
View more about Venom reviews
