Venom

Year Of Release: 2018

Genre: Superhero

Run Time: 112mns

Age Rating: PG 13 (UK)

Director: Ruben Fleischer

Review

I know what you're thinking... "Holy crap Pixar branched out creatively after Toy Story 2!" Well no, not exactly. The truth is that my Monsters, Inc. review is currently still in the works, and having heard that Venom had just dropped into the cinemas with a dismount from the editing studio that bore a stark resemblance to Samir Ait Said's 2016 exit from the Rio Olympics, I was keen to investigate it. 

Above: Venom's shoddy dismount from the editing studio.

Before going to see the film I had scanned through a few reviews as I usually do and by golly gosh did that cancerous blanket of general distaste that had settled itself over the film's Rotten Tomatoes page, like powdered asbestos, draw me in! One of the articles I read was a review on IGN that remains in my mind, even after seeing the film, as a very apt summary of 'Venom'. "A turd in the wind", reads the title, taking a quote from the film, a quote that I have to agree with them on, as the film was not great. However, after having walked into the cinema, popcorn in hand and ready to have a good chuckle at the resulting mess of over 10 years of other people's hard work, I was to be disappointed. Whilst 'Venom' was certainly the film equivalent of a turd in the wind, what I hadn't accounted for was that much like I imagine literally watching excrement being ushered down a street would be, the film wasn't dull. I found myself at times laughing with the film rather than at it, as it cheekily gushed along the gutter scaring passers-by. The only problem was, as I sat in the middle of that street watching it from afar, occasionally the metaphorical wind would change direction and I would be treated to a face-full of shit!  

First of all I'm going to do what all good millennials do. Argue my point against people (reviewers) who are older, more experienced and just generally better at what they do than I am, whilst simultaneously ignoring all the well analysed points that they present. My point being that this film is not poor enough to warrant only a 30% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. So here goes! 'Venom', is by no means a great film. But on the flipside, it's certainly not a bad film. The negative points are unequivocally more entertaining and plentiful so I will trot through a couple of them first. My main qualm with the film did not sit with the awful pacing or with the occasionally BTEC level script. Instead it parked it's rear end firmly next to the action scenes. I am not a fan of action films as 'lack of an actual story' and 'unbridled masculinity', aren't exactly two of the main things that I look for in a film. This is however not why I find the truly bombastic action set pieces, that litter themselves throughout 'Venom's runtime, obnoxiously unnecessary. The reason for this is that they change the tone of the film completely. Don't get me wrong, this film lacks subtlety like most females lack a Y chromosome but even for this film the set pieces are so over the top and drawn out that it drags down the aspects of the film that are genuinely entertaining.

My other problem with Venom that I will touch on is the relationships within the film, or lack thereof. I can't think of any two characters within this film that share screen time, who show any kind of chemistry. Plot points that really should effect relationships between characters are used solely to push the film forwards and character development was completely forgotten. Tom Hardy gave a multi-layered and believable delivery of the characters that he portrayed, his performance within this film outshining the oftentimes sloppy script and cringe inducing dialogue. However even Hardy seemed to share more chemistry with his other self than he did with any other character within the film! 

A HD image of the dust 

settling on an average Venom fan.

Like I said, Hardy should be commended for his work in 'Venom' and although the actor has seemingly tried to distance himself from the feature post release, I believe he has nothing to be ashamed of. The scenes with just Eddie Brock and Venom were, in my opinion the films high points. Not only were they engaging and somewhat believable but they were also the main source of the laughs for me. The first 30 or so minutes of the film is mainly what I would refer to as exposition and by god does it drag. However, from the point at which the titular Venom is bonded with Eddie, the film picks itself up to dust off some of the disappointment that had settled on the studded wristbands and liberty spikes of the edgy Venom fans. From this point onwards, Venom proceeds to reveal itself as a moderately enjoyable B-list superhero flick. I think what truly sums up it's B-List status is the production company cards at the start of the film. "In Association with MARVEL STUDIOS", it proudly announces. I'll admit, this was my first laugh at the film. It's presence on the screen made  me imagine an inherently unpopular child namedropping one of the 'cool kids' in order to gain some early credibility. In actual fact, what seems to be the case with this film is, that past the initial creation of its characters, Marvel had very little to do with the production of Venom.

Overall Venom is an earnest attempt to bring the titular character to the silver screen and whilst it's true, the film is a pretty large mess, it's entertaining. Much like a dog with wheels for hind legs, it's moderately endearing in its attempt to join the other dogs atop the stairs of popularity and also like a dog with wheels for hind legs, it is definitely worth spending your money on just to see it... I mean, even if you hate the film you get a free comic from it so, win win!


Scoring

Final Score: 8

Footnote (to answer the questions that nobody asked me):

Q. Is this review sponsored by any companies?
A. I'm shocked that you think that I wouldn't make Sure you knew from the outset of the review whether it was sponsored or not. I'm so angry that I'll only let you Axe me one more question so long as you never mention brand deals again. Knorr shall you bother any companies that you may suspect sponsor me. Unilever.*

Q. What is the most egregious act of animal on animal bullying that you have ever witnessed and where did it occur?
A. Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.


*Disclaimer: I am not actually sponsored by Unilever. Knorr anyone else.

Toy Story 2

Year of Release: 1999

Genre: Adventure

Run Time: 89mns

Age Rating: U (UK)

Director: John Lasseter

Review

It has now become time to review the second movie in Pixar's highly regarded 'Toy Story' trilogy and the third and youngest child of my three siblings analogy. Toy  Story 2 sat in it's soiled nappies and marvelled as it's oldest brother (Toy Story) receive praise for his ground-breaking strides in dinner time etiquette. He also watched as his middle brother (A Bug's Life) received a first birthday card from his parents two days late after he was forced to walk home from the shopping centre at which they had left him. As he sat, Toy  Story 2 took in all this information and analysed it before proceeded to demonstrate such an unbridled level of all round insufferable perfection that even the angel child that was its oldest brother wanted to sucker punch it.

Now that I have completed that strained analogy, that I'll admit, probably stretched on for 2 reviews too many, I can proceed to give my uniquely unqualified critique of this film. This film is, honest to god, the quintessential example of how to make a sequel for a film that is held in such high regard that I'm sure that if it started a career in magic it would gain some disciples and have a religion named after it! Rather than allowing the tsunami of praise that followed Toy Story's success to fill their heads with a sense that they could do no wrong, Pixar looked back at their previous works and ironed out their short comings to produce what is no less than the best sequel ever put to film. A sequel that, in my opinion at least, is superior to the original in every aspect!

A photo of Toy Story's 4th birthday party featuring close friends and loved ones. A photo of Toy Story's 4th birthday party featuring close friends and loved ones.

The story is larger in its scope than the first and therefore feels more like the adventure of truly vast proportions that the first had promised but not quite delivered upon. Toy Story 2 not only delivers a sense of scale to the toy's adventure that was missing in the first but also adds a true sense of possibility that the group may be separated forever. I'm now going to trust this review pelvis first into spoiler territory, however quite frankly if you are old enough to be able to read this review and you have not yet watched this film, the lack of joy in your life must seem like the more pressing matter than reading a spoiler to a film that is nearly two decades old. Within the main story arc of this film we learn Woody's origin story and meet the rest of what is, for all intents and purpose, his true family. These new characters are in turn the keystone of Toy Story 2's superiority to its predecessor as not only do they cohesively merge with the existing cast, they are also so well built upon, not once coming across as a half-arsed attempt to further their profit margins with new merchandise.

A picture of an early, more realistic version of the final chase 

before Disney called for the re-writes.

Their contribution to the story is not only in their mere presence as they provide a believable reason for Woody to leave his friends and Andy forever. They are his birth family, a link to his origins that had remained alien to him until meeting them, he completed their set and even though he'd only just met them he felt like he was home. The film excellently plays with this possibility of Woody leaving forever up until the very final act. I'll admit, this suspense is completely upheaved when you remember that Pixar are owned by Disney and that this is a kids film so of course there is no way on Bald Mountain that Woody was going anywhere other than back home with his friends. This to be fair is probably a better message to send to children than 'it's alright to expatriate oneself with some people you met 1 day ago'!

Once again however, Pixar completely lose me in the very final act as they once again demonstrate their inability to close a Toy Story film without a toy displaying an ability that is so unrealistic that it even seems out of place in a children's film about sentient toys! In the first Toy Story it was RC the remote controlled toy car who managed to keep up with a truck that may have been going up to 35mph. In the sequel however Pixar knew they had to up the anti. So in order to one up themselves the closing sequence had a toy horse keep pace with a plane. Now I have done my research, and the average take-off speed of a fully loaded 747 is 184mph. I just can't help but feel that even a real horse would be running on bloodied stumps at that point, I'm sorry Pixar but I can only suspend my disbelief so far!

Scoring Final Score: 19   Footnote (to answer the questions nobody cares about): Q. What is your favourite colour? A. H.144, S.144, L.255 Q. How does your scoring system work? A. I choose a random number from 1-20, 1 being unbridled hatred and 20 being unrequited love. I then cut that number down into 4 new random numbers who's sum equals my original number and voila. Some people just like numerical stimuli in reviews.

A Bug's Life

Year Of Release: 1998

Genre: Adventure

Run Time: 91mns

Age Rating: U (UK)

Director: John Lasseter

Review


Hello, welcome to this, my second review in a series of reviews on Pixar films. A series that is proving to be a lot more intrusive upon my free time than I first thought. This review will be looking at 'A Bug's Life', a film that can proudly hold the title of 'nobody's favourite Pixar film' before glumly trudging off to wave the trophy aloft the podium of 'most forgettable Pixar film'.

Pictured: 'A Bug's Life' is allowed to

stand on the podium as they accept 

their participation award.

As I've grown older and (perhaps disagreeably) wiser, I have come to regard 'A Bug's Life' as the middle child of three. Pixar's first creation had been around for 3 years upon the arrival of 'A Bug's Life' and so the same people who had cooed over 'Toy Story' as it learned to use the potty nary glanced towards 'A Bug's Life', as it competently cocked it's bare buttocks over the toilet on it's first attempt. This being because they were too busy packing their firstborn's lunchbox as they prepared to head off to big boy school. To compound 'A Bug's Life'[s]' ultimate fate, Pixar, being the ever procreative parents that they are, had barely christened their second child before announcing the upcoming arrival of their third. An arrival that promised to be much the same as their first - a sequel if you will! This announcement in turn sent the relatives into a wild tizzy of joy, so much so that they completely overlooked the fact that 'A Bug's Life', was busy in the garden making friends with the neighbour's Pitbull.

Now, I like 'A Bug's Life', however I am more than happy to concede that it is by no means Pixar's finest work. For a start they seem to have taken a step back from the animation quality of their previous work, which I found odd as for me the steps forward that they made in the industry with each subsequent film was an aspect of Pixar that I admire. For them to have released a film in which their characters reflected light off of their carapaces like arthropodan lighthouses must have meant that they were under some kind of time constraints. It was almost as if Pixar had caught wind of another intellectual property that followed a very similar storyline being in production... Anyway I don't care too much whether Pixar copied DreamWorks or vice versa as the latter mentioned company could not hold a candle to the animation quality of even Pixar's worst work. 

'A Bug's Life' makes rude gestures

 to the other films as his parents

 pick him up in their Rolls Royce.

My main point that I want to get across is that I just don't feel like Pixar tried overly hard with 'A Bug's Life', which is annoying as much like that one snotty nosed brat we all knew who could breeze through exams 'without even revising', Pixar did not do a bad enough job to warrant any kind of negative reaction. It holds fairly strong critical acclaim on most sites and whilst I don't necessarily think that it deserves to rot in a stinking pit of shame, I also don't think it deserves a 92% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. The film does keep to Pixar's high standard of charm and wit and the characters are memorable. They are however, in my opinion, some of the least relatable characters that have come out of the production house so far, with (the main character) Flik's idea of sorting out his cock-ups involve begging another group of insects to do it for him under false pretences.

Overall 'A Bug's Life' doesn't hold up as well as other Pixar properties but is still nonetheless a strong film. The Pixar standard of a strong story and an excellent script help this film float effortlessly above the moist bog in which you can find the deformed carcasses of less fortunate animated affairs such as 'Minions'. I must say though that although Pixar had a lot of shortcomings with this film - they certainly managed their objective of making the most curvaceous ant in cinema history with the Princess!
Scoring

Final Score: 14

Footnote (to answer the questions nobody cares about):

Q- When will the quality of your illustrations improve?
A- I believe the phrase in these situations goes along the following lines; You can't polish a turd.

Q- If you could be any celebrity for the day who would you be?
A- John Malkovich.