I have nothing but the utmost respect for Guillermo del Toro. If you ever heard him speak about movies, books, art, you know this guy knows his stuff. And Crimson Peak is the proof in the pudding, as they say. Because without him, without his sense of direction and his visuals, you could have the same actors, the same script and make it more boring and bad. At least in its current form, Crimson Peak is a visual feast that is unfortunately on the dull side.

Or maybe, I should phrase myself better. It’s not that Crimson Peak is boring, but the trailers for this film spoiled some of the biggest scares and oversold how scary this film would be. And looking around at different ratings and reviews around the Internet, I might not be the only one saying that.

Crimson Peak is a film where two women rule the screen – Mia Wasikowska and Jessica Chastain. Yes, we also have Tom Hiddleston here in the titular role, but he takes a back seat to these two and frankly, who wouldn’t? And both are great, Mia was believable, and her performance layered. She starts this film as a girl and ends it as a woman. Standing on her own, with the growth in between those two “stages”, was believable, and of course, she’s Mia Wasikowska; she knows a thing or two about this “acting gig”. Jessica Chastain has to breathe in a movie, and I would give her all the awards, just showing my cards on the table. But even I thought that her character could have been shown a tiny bit differently.

I know it was the point of this film for us to know, there is something wrong with her (Jessica’s) character, but I still would prefer it if we didn’t see it from the very first scene she was in. But alas, this is what Crimson Peak was for me in a nutshell. I understood why things happened the way they have, but those decisions mostly didn’t work for me.

What I liked, besides the already mentioned direction and visual flair by Guillermo, was the focus of this film, the main idea. And this is where I might spoil the concept of the film but nothing concrete, so I won’t put the spoiler tag up but proceed at your own risk. I liked how we have ghosts here, but they are not the enemy, the evil force in this film. It’s the people, the living, who you should be terrified of. And this is what I meant by the creative direction by Guillermo. Only he could have a vintage horror film made where you see a few ghosts, but those turn out to be warning our hero rather than trying to kill her.

Unfortunately, even with that idea, the actors, the visuals… it wasn’t enough for me not to get bored at times. I expected a few more scares, to be honest. And even the overall atmosphere of the film wasn’t what I thought I was in for. It’s almost like Guillermo was trying to play it too clever and try to have this Victorian ghost horror story too grounded, to the point you can’t get too scared. And then the “twist” happens that explained a few things, but honestly… was it shocking…? No, as much as it could have been, had Jessica’s character wasn’t telegraphed from the very first scene.

And yet, I need to make this point crystal clear – this movie is still decent. And it’s only like that because of Guillermo. I firmly believe had you removed him from this film and hired somebody else to direct the same actors without his contribution, visual flair, and intelligence, this movie would have become almost a parody of what a Victorian horror should be. So while I might have a few objections to the final film, I still realise this is the best thing we could have gotten.

Overall, Crimson Peak is a perfect way to get someone who usually doesn’t watch horror movies into horror films. I’ve started to watch it by myself, and around 15 minutes in, I got joined by my girlfriend. And since she also loves and admires Jessica Chastain and was intrigued by the visual flair of what she saw, she stayed throughout the entire film and liked it; she wasn’t concerned that it was a horror film. She even said how stunning the movie looked. And I couldn’t agree more. Crimson Peak is a visually stunning piece of Victorian horror that knows what it wants to say. It’s a shame that it couldn’t have held its cards closer to the chest at times, so we are in for a ride with our characters rather than being a few steps ahead of them.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

If you have ever seen Anna Kendrick in pretty much any film, you know she’s always one of the highlights and a more than welcome addition to anything. That’s not news, just a fact. And in Noelle, she is the main star and the almost single reason this movie works on any level. Because I am not going to lie, the rest of this film is a pretty standard (at some places sub-standard) Christmas movie. And Anna is the only reason to watch this film, to be honest. But let’s start from the beginning.

Noelle is as simple as it gets. Santa is a magical being but, he’s still mortal (how does that work?) and therefore can die. When his time comes, and Santa dies, his son (Bill Hader) is supposed to be the new Santa. Except that he doesn’t want to be the new Santa. And his sister (portrayed by Anna Kendrick) wants it. She is the better choice, has always been, and most importantly, she always wanted something more. But for “reasons”, it takes everyone pretty much most of the movie to figure out she can be the new Santa. That is the plot in the nutshell.

This film is all over the place. It’s trying to be a bit like Elf (2003) and replicate the “Christmas fish out of the North Pole” scenario, but this time with Anna Kendrick. And it works to an extent. The problem here is that Anna is surrounded by great actors (already mentioned Bill Hader, Shirley MacLaine, Julie Hagerty or Billy Eichner), who should provide her with some comedic elements to act off of, but everybody except Shirley gives her nothing. Julie is stuck in the “mom” mode where she knows what needs to be done but has no power, Billy Eichner is the “trying to do everything modern way” character who is also very strict, and Bill Hader is just flapping from one scene to another. I get it that was his character, but honestly, it felt like he was done with everything. The only person (except Shirley) who tried to give Anna something to play off was Kingsley Ben-Adir, who was kind of a love interest and kind of not…? I swear this film felt like it had no script, and people were relying on Anna to be herself and hope for the best. Well, and that’s exactly what happened.

I’ve loved Anna ever since I had seen her over a decade ago now in (criminally underseen and not often talked about film these days) Up in the Air (2009), where she shines. And the movie earned her an Oscar nomination (rightfully so). Since then, I would always look out for her name in the opening credits. She has her unique style of acting, where she seems to “just be herself”, so people would often presume she isn’t acting, but I think that’s just shortchanging her. She is always on her best game, and the reason I enjoy her acting so much is her delivery. I don’t think she gets praised enough for her timing and comedy chops. Because in the hands of much worse actors, that “schtick” would get old, really quickly, always being slightly out-there and always being “at 100%”. But she is one of only a few actors I can name that does this often, and it never gets old. Because she is smart about it and knows instinctively when to lean into it and when to relax, you can see that on display in this film. I am not exaggerating when I say she is single-handedly saving this film from being unwatchable.

Because everything around Anna is just a bunch of walking cliches in a Christmas movie that’s desperately trying to be “hip”. So every kid wants an iPad. And Billy Eichner’s character talks about GPS and USB-3, so the “youths” would be… more into it? Call me an old fashioned old fart, but I always thought Christmas movies don’t always have to reflect their time. You don’t have to name drop “the hottest item” of that year because all that does is take you out of that “Christmas magic” this movie is trying so desperately to get going. And towards the end, once they tone everything down to the minimum and let Noelle save Christmas (spoiler, but not really, come on), that is when we finally see something worthwhile. The last 20 minutes or so are the best part of the film, by far. Why? Because it gets to the core of what Christmas is (or should be), and most importantly, it lets us see mostly Anna, growing into the character of Noelle and being charming, funny, and all that seems effortless.

I’ve mentioned the name of a certain legend (Shirley MacLaine) so let’s talk about her briefly. With the little she’s been given in this film (aunt, who is so old she is not afraid to speak her mind), she did the best she could. What I am about to write might sound strange; because they mostly share the scenes, but I wish we would have gotten even more scenes with Shirley and Anna together. That was the relationship that not only worked for me but also was funny because they were both on the same page. And I can’t help but think they should have given Shirley more scenes, period. You have a living legend in your film, and this is the best way to utilize her? Really?

Overall, Noelle is one of those films your enjoyment of it will correlate with how much you love/adore Anna Kendrick, as she is the glue that holds this film together. So if you are like me and enjoy her acting, you might want to check out Noelle, as she shines here. Anna commands the screen and makes you feel safe like everything will be fine. And towards the end, she almost makes you believe this might have been a great film. But, in reality, Noelle is as an average of a Christmas movie as it gets. And only Anna Kendrick lifts this much, much higher than the film deserves to be. If I ever re-watch this film, it will be only for her performance.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

If you are new to this blog, you might not know that I am not from an English speaking country. I am from the Czech Republic. What does it mean? Well, for starters, sometimes, my sentences and syntax might be “a bit” weird to follow (but I promise you I am working on that). But more to the point, I come from a country that even though we have our own (and quite rich) cinematic history and many Christmas movies, we still love most of what Americans love. The best example is Home Alone (1990) and its sequel Home Alone 2: Lost in New York (1991). I grew up watching those every Christmas and love them both equally (I know many don’t like the second one as much, and one day, I will review them both). And there might be more movies coming to the “foreground” in recent years because of the internet and streaming services. But there are still many films Americans consider classics, and I have never seen them. I would always hear about them being a movie lover, and now, I am making a conscious effort to go through them. The Santa Clause trilogy is the perfect example of Xmas movies I’d always hear about but never watched.

The Santa Clause is one of those films that is so 90s it can make you cringe sometimes. It has all the tropes you’d expect from the mid 90s Xmas movie. Dad is all over the place yet successful at his work; mum is the reasonable one with her new boyfriend, whose only issue is not being our protagonist, and, in the middle, you have their son. Who believes in the power of Christmas, Santa, and everything around that. Except in this film, we go one step further, and the dad (portrayed by Tim Allen) manages to… kill Santa (but it was an accident, so I guess that makes it ok?), so he takes his place and becomes the new Santa. And that’s pretty much the film.

And here’s the thing – my first paragraph about movies you grew up on, especially Christmas movies, matters now. Because that might be why this one missed me, I could see all the elements being present and working as they should. The movie has the Xmas magic, especially towards the end, where it gets a bit touching, which was nice. But it never hit me in the same way other movies did and still do. And I don’t know whether it’s because I didn’t grow up watching this, or maybe it’s because The Santa Clause might be one of the weaker Xmas movies…?

I like Tim Allen (all politics and his scandals aside), but I never “loved” him. It’s always a pleasure watching Judge Reinhold because, for me, he’s one of those underrated actors who is brilliant playing supporting characters. You will remember his face from different movies, but he never takes you out of either of his films because there is something about him, and he can play funny, confused and a bit dickish characters well.

I also feel like this movie might be just a bit too bloated. It is only 97 minutes, but I feel like there isn’t much story here, so they could have improved the pacing by cutting a good ten minutes or so, and that would’ve improved the film massively. Because it felt just a tad bit long and not that funny. I know that Xmas films aren’t complicated and usually are pretty straightforward. But in this film, it seemed like there isn’t much more happening beyond the “Tim Allen becomes Santa and needs to convince everyone around him he isn’t going insane” storyline. And since I have already mentioned them, both Home Alone films are longer than this film, with the second one being two hours long, but they also have much more meat on their bones. They both are funnier, have much more going on, and if you boil both of them down, they have pretty much the same message as this film (about Xmas and family, what is truly important). The more I am writing about The Santa Clause, the more I am convinced that this movie is a simple Christmas movie with nothing much going for it. And hey, that’s perfectly fine, especially if you grew up watching this film as I did with Home Alone movies, you wouldn’t probably mind that, and you will “forgive” more things than me.

Overall, The Santa Clause is a film that won’t be joining my “I need to watch this every Xmas” collection of movies. It’s not bad by any means, once it gets going, it’s pretty good, and the ending is charming, but for its runtime, it drags on, the jokes mostly fell flat for me, and even Tim Allen isn’t providing us with “something special” that would intrigue me to come back. I will watch the other two films, with me being a completionist and all, and I wonder whether I will like either of them more. Or whether I might find a new appreciation for them; once I’ve watched them all.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Christmas is a time of cheer, family/friends coming together and in some countries (apparently) Krampus. Because nothing says Christmas like the opposite of Santa Claus (or Father Christmas, depending on where you are from), a demon-like creature; who might punish you or straight up kidnap you if you misbehaved. I am from a country that still has this proud (I guess?) tradition going strong – on the 5th of December, if you are visiting the Czech Republic, go outside in the evening. And pretty much anywhere, you will eventually bump into the “holy trio” – St. Nicholas, an Angel and Krampus. St. Nicholas would give kids sweats (mostly chocolate nowadays, but occasionally some fruit too), and Angel was there to counter the evilness of Krampus, who would be threatening you with hell and might give you a piece of coal. Yep, many kids are traumatised from this tradition because you can imagine the Krampus masks are becoming more and more sophisticated, therefore scarier over the years.

But here’s the thing – Krampus isn’t associated with Christmas for us (Czechs). He’s more associated with “Christmas is coming” time, almost pre-Christmas. So for me, watching a movie like Krampus was something different. And not because of what was happening in it, but it had more to do with the simple fact that he isn’t a “Christmas” thing for me. But let’s stop with my traditions and what I am used to and get to the film.

Krampus is, for the most its length, an entertaining enough movie that’s really struggling with its rating. And this is my biggest complaint and the movie’s biggest weakness. You can tell this movie is trying to do the maximum with its PG-13 rating, but truth be told, it doesn’t work. It almost felt like Krampus was stuck in two gears for the entire movie – in between horror film and wacky, slightly darker comedy. And it does neither great.

For my money, I’d rather have the film one way that might have worked than pulled apart throughout scenes to various genres. And I could imagine the same cast (I will talk about them soon) in either scenario. Either make the movie “PG” and lean into the wackiness of it, with darker humour and some tension and bin the “horror” element or make it full hard R and go nuts with it. Balls to the walls bloody Christmas film which would not be forgotten for years to come. But in its current form, Krampus seemed stuck between these two options, and they simply clash.

And when you see the cast of this film, you will regret it even more. We have more than a competent bunch of mostly comedians; everybody from Adam Scott to David Koechner, Allison Tolman to Conchata Ferrell (RIP) do have their moments. And you can see them giving it their all in either genre. Plus, on top of everything, we have Toni Collette as our “main mum”, who is delightful as always. So the cast is solid, and maybe that’s the reason why it hurts even more seeing the final result.

The thing is, this to me looks like there was nobody to fault but the studio. I can easily see this being one of those cases where the director had one vision, and the studio said: “Cool, we are NOT doing that.” And that is how we got this film, being the “middle ground”. And lo and behold, IMDb’s trivia confirms it:

Understandably, with the controversy that surrounded other Christmas horror movies like Silent Night, Deadly Night (1984) and Black Christmas (1974, my review here), Krampus (2015) was a hard story to sell. It wasn’t until Legendary Pictures agreed to a PG-13 rating that Universal green lit the movie.

Source: IMDb.com

The thing is, I was saying this to myself while watching the film, long before I read the trivia section on IMDb. But you don’t have to be a genius to see it, especially when you are like me – a mad man who might have watched too many movies to catch on these tiny things. Because if it wasn’t for that, Krampus would have been a delightful surprise for me. The cast is great; it’s a Christmas movie about something we don’t see portrayed a lot in media, and I loved the open ending. Without going into spoilers, it’s not one of those endings that would try to set up a sequel. It’s more of those films that shows you something, and then it’s up to you, the viewer, to decide what that means. I have my interpretation of the ending, but I can see others arrive at something else, and it still would make sense. And I like films like that.

Overall, Krampus is a hard movie to review. Because all the elements are here to make something unique. Additionally, now I know if it weren’t for the studio, the film would have retained its R rating, and we could have gotten something remarkable. Something that might have still not been perfect by any means, but at least it would be its own thing. As it stands, I would cautiously recommend Krampus, especially if you are looking for a movie to watch throughout this Christmas and want to see something different. And who knows? Maybe the fact it’s stuck in this limbo between dark comedy and horror might be totally for you. And if so, that’s great. It just wasn’t working that well for me.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

Oh boy, where to start with this one… Let’s take it from the beginning. I have seen the “original” Justice League (2017) and thought it was a pretty average film. I knew about the re-shoots that took place after Zack Snyder left due to his family tragedy. What I didn’t know, and nobody could at the time, was how much Joss Whedon left on the cutting room floor. That started the #ReleaseTheSnyderCut movement, which might have started with good intentions. But as with everything nowadays, it devolved into a mess, where people are afraid to say anything negative regarding Zack Snyder or this movie. I need to make something clear; as with any movement/fan base, call it whatever you want; there will always be minorities who will push everything too far. So, to make everything crystal clear, I am not saying everybody campaigning for this cut is a troll, but there is (what I would hope to be) a small minority of pretty loud trolls in this specific movement.

Let’s go back to this movie. The Snyder Cut for a while seemed to be this magical unicorn. Something, people almost wanted to exist because they were so disappointed with what we’ve gotten with Joss’ Justice League. And then, the man, the myth, the legend confirmed it himself – Zack said his cut exists. And that shifted this movement to new heights. They were larger than Mount Everest at that point. And this is where I have a tiny issue with the way this story goes – what we have gotten now, with Zack Snyder’s Justice League is his cut, no questions about that. But and this is the big point for me – this is NOT what we would have gotten, even if Snyder’s family tragedy didn’t happen. Had he stayed and finished the film, there was no way in hell studio would let him release an almost four-hour movie in a 4:3 ratio. But given everything that happened and the online support he managed to get from his loyal fans, the studio gave him money, freedom and he delivered… this. So, let’s talk about this without any baggage; let’s judge this film on its own merits, shall we?

Zack Snyder’s Justice League is a 100% better movie than the 2017 version. I can’t argue against that. Especially the Cyborg (Ray Fisher) character got more space. We saw what Joss left on the floor, and it made this character work better. And the final battle scene with all our heroes combined was also much better executed. But that is about it. And this is where we need to be objective – this was too bloated. There weren’t any reasons for this film to be almost four hours. Even when they (HBO) were planning to release this as a limited series, I had my doubts they had enough material, and sure enough, they didn’t.

Don’t get me wrong, they shot plenty of scenes, but editing is an art you only appreciate once it’s done badly. Or, like in this case, not at all, it seemed. I think Zack wanted to overcompensate for his fans and gave them literally everything he shot. It’s like he said to himself: “They want to see my version. They want to see what I shot. I will give them everything.” And as noble as it might sound (if this truly happened), it was 100% a wrong move. Because all this cut confirmed was just how much Snyder shot. Not that his film is much superior.

And yet, I believe we have a great film here. If somebody edited mainly the first two hours down and also worked on the end of this movie (that seemed to be going on forever!), into let’s say three hours, maybe slightly less, maybe slightly more, it might have been a great movie that would once and for all showcased, why you need to trust the process. Instead, once you finally finish this almost four-hour beast, you feel exhausted, but not in a good way. My initial thoughts were: “Sure, from what I remember about the previous Justice League, this was better, but was it really that much better?” Something in my head was contemplating why I couldn’t “push” myself to love this. And then it dawned on me – it is bloated. I have no issue spending a few hours watching a film or a great show. And it rarely feels like that if the show or a movie is brilliant. But with Zack Snyder’s Justice League, there are moments where you “feel” the length.

I hoped that in this version, they would (spoiler alert but not really) at least resurrect Superman earlier. But nope. As with the previous version, it takes way too much time to get him back. But I understand why, as this cut highlighted even more, how useless everybody else is, compared to him. Take the final fight against Steppenwolf; they all inflict some damage but struggle to do anything meaningful. Superman shows up and pretty much destroys him within five minutes…? That’s the paradox of Superman’s character in a nutshell – he’s all too powerful, there is no point for Justice League. Sure, some characters can go toe to toe with him, but let’s face it. Unless there is (his only weakness) Kryptonite involved, he will overpower anybody. In this cut, it was so painfully obvious he is “Justice League” of his own.

Also, the special effects/re-design of Steppenwolf were… ok? I know many fans were delighted with this change, how it looks so much better than the 2017 version and… does it? Yeah, he looked a bit shinier and “hornier” (not like that, you perverts, his armour had more horns/spikes), but was I so impressed by this change? Not really. The problem wasn’t (at least for me) the design of his character; it was more about his motivations. And in here, he is pretty much a slightly more powerful henchman for a boss he “video calls” way too often throughout the movie. I know why they have done it, trying to hype up his “boss” (Thanos style), but it didn’t work the way they intended.

I know this review might seem slightly more “all over the place”, and I think it’s because this whole thing (not just this cut) has been like that. Because of what the #ReleaseTheSnyderCut started, I am not sure; if I am on board with it. Am I happy that Zack Snyder managed to come back to something he had to quit because of an awful tragedy? Yes. Do I think it was necessary and might trigger countless other “#ReleaseThisCut” campaigns? Possibly, hell, we already have people calling for “the original” cut of Suicide Squad (2016) with #ReleaseTheAyerCut. But where do we draw the line? Instead of re-doing films that have already been done wouldn’t it be better to focus the money and the energy of those talented people behind those films on something new? Rather than going back? Because if Zack Snyder’s Justice League proved anything to me, was yeah, he had shot a different film. And yes, it is slightly better. But it still has its problems. Now, I, as a fan, have two choices.

1. Move on with my life, and understand that sometimes, things happen, and a director I like (and I do enjoy his work) has a mediocre movie. Which is fine; every director has at least a few movies they would rather forget.
2. Go and complain about it on Twitter, start the #RecutTheSynderCut, because I am so sure this will produce a masterpiece we deserve. And I honestly believe that had someone reduced the runtime of this monster, this could be a great film. But is that beneficial to anyone? Me, the filmmakers, the fans? Personally, I will say no, but obviously, that is up for debate.

I would rather choose option two. Listen, if you really enjoyed this film, I am happy for you. I honestly am. But would I prefer for the 40 million dollars they spent on “finishing” this cut to go to some smaller filmmaker for something new? Nowadays, you don’t even get anywhere near that amount for indie movies. And I know, this isn’t Zack’s fault, clearly. But all I am saying, the resources that went into this production could have given many filmmakers the much-needed resources for their smaller, not superhero-related, movies.

Overall, Zack Snyder’s Justice League is a complicated film for me. The story behind this film is a tragic one. And I rooted for Zack to deliver something that would be so much better than what we got in 2017. I rated that version 5/10 (or 2.5*). And this is a superior version, so my rating is higher. But would I recommend it? Even though it’s better, and it’s from a director I still like, I don’t know to be honest. If I were talking to a hardcore comic book fan, the answer would be yes; I would recommend them this film. But if they were more casual moviegoers, I don’t think I would. I don’t think there would be a point for your average movie-going audience to see this almost four beast, as they’d suffer through it. And that’s the ultimate paradox of this cut. After all this money spent, it might be the biggest blockbuster ever produced for a relatively tiny, niche group of fans. One thing you can’t deny though they are a loud and passionate bunch.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke

I won’t lie, I have enjoyed the first Venom (2018) film. I thought it was something new Tom Hardy fit the role perfectly, and overall, I had a pretty good time with the movie. Although I have to admit, I haven’t seen it since the cinema (I’ve rated it 8/10, or 4*). So of course, we (my girlfriend and I) had to go and see Venom: Let There Be Carnage (quite a mouthful) in the cinemas again, as she was with me the first time too. And I still definitely enjoyed myself, the movie is so short it doesn’t have the time to bore you, but I felt like something was… missing?

Venom: Let There Be Carnage takes what worked from the previous movie and rolls with it. I enjoyed how they approached Venom’s and Eddie’s (Tom Hardy’s character) “relationship” with his… shall we say “unusual body mate”? That was definitely the highlight for me, to see their chaotic relationship, how they argued all the time. But since Venom is inside his body/head, nobody can hear Venom, so everybody only responds to Eddie and how he is “acting out”.

The movie itself feels almost “half-done”. What I mean by that – it flies by really quickly that is usually a big plus in my book, but in this specific example, it felt almost too fast. Like there was at least an hour or two of footage left someplace on the cutting room floor? The main reason I felt like this was except for the Eddie/Venom relationship, there were no other characters we could care about.

And that is a shame, as we have Woody Harrelson as Carnage and Naomie Harris portraying Shriek (a character I wasn’t familiar with at all). And they both get the bare minimum of character development to get the movie moving forward to its chaotic action sequences. Some of these scenes felt like Andy Serkis (yep, THE Andy Serkis directed this movie) chugged some Red Bulls alongside his camera operator, and they felt the need to go fast. But what might work for “some” hedgehog called Sonic doesn’t necessarily work for this film. Because for us to care about this film and the stakes, we need to know a bit more than the bare minimum?

The other thing that disappointed me was the colossal waste of Michelle Williams and Reid Scott. Both talented actors, both came back, and they have been given almost zero things to do. Sure, Michelle’s character yet again needs to be saved (spoiler, but not really as come on!), and Reid’s there for about five to ten minutes to be the “character who can’t believe what’s happening around him”. If you know him from the show Veep (2012 – 2019), you know very well what he is capable of, and yet, here he is wasted more than a condom machine in the Vatican. And don’t even get me started on Michelle’s character… Why even ask her to be back if you weren’t going to give her anything meaningful to do?

I think that was my main issue with the film. It’s trying to be an action-packed cool ride so much, it kind of goes there, and it doesn’t bother with anything else. Sure, we spend some time catching up on Eddie and Venom’s dynamic, but other than those two (and those are the protagonists!), we have zero other characters to be invested in. That reminds me – Stephen Graham is also a superb actor who tried something here, and the movie hints towards the end at him being “the big bad” in the possible next film…? But do we know much about him, except his hearing loss due to him escorting Naomie’s Shriek character that one time? Nothing.

Look, I understand this is still a comic book film, and trust me, I don’t expect a drama with fully fleshed-out characters like from a Stephen King book, no. But would it help if this movie took the time to establish the characters a bit more? At least our main villain (I guess) duo? Absolutely it would. Because once the movie is over, you realise that you have enjoyed the ride, but the moment you start thinking more about everything you’ve seen, the more you realise the things that bothered you while the movie was happening. The film manages to distract you with CGI fight scenes almost every five minutes, not giving you a lot of time to think about anything. But eventually, you will think about this film. And when I think about the first Venom, I think about a movie that had some issues, but I overall enjoyed it. When I look back on this film, I can’t help but think that the ride was pretty thrilling, but it could have been so much more than just a cool ride.

Overall, Venom: Let There Be Carnage is a decent enough film. The movie is lucky enough they cast Tom Hardy, who does his very best to keep you entertained and makes you understand his character and at the same time can act this chaotic energy so well, it never becomes tiring. I liked the action scenes, albeit some were too chaotic and too “rubber looking”, but at the moment, you are simply along for the ride. But that is pretty much it. When comes to any great villains, any character development for our supporting characters from the first film, forget about it. It will be interesting to see what is next for this franchise (?) and what the future holds.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke