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.

23 Years of Pixar

A toy cowboy towards the end 

of the third and final act.

Pixar have been churning out classic children's cinema for nearly quarter of a century now. Yes, that is a long time! Doesn't that just make you feel oh so old and nostalgic. And yes, to those few that are reading this and those fewer still who would stand to correct me, I know that Pixar have been making films since 1986. I however flat out refuse to sit and gaily sing songs around the campfire with those that believe that what Pixar were producing pre 1995 was akin to the second coming of Christ. This is because unlike those that do I prefer to go to bed after the campfire songs are done, whereas they prefer to sit in a circle, merrily producing jets of spunk whilst quoting Citizen Kane. I say this, as no matter how monolithic or important these films were in their time or how important they were in helping to create the cinematic experience as it stands today, they seem nothing but quaint in their antiquity when compared to todays standards. It is for this reason why I choose to ignore the first 9 years of Pixar's independence from Lucasfilm, instead focusing on 1995's Toy Story as their first real contribution to their true target audience. This being the film that changed the animation industry forever whist simultaneously changing the way every child swung open their bedroom door in a desperate bid to catch their toys midway through a mass re-enactment of the Jonestown Massacre. (ooh how edgy)

In all seriousness Pixar studios have played a very large part in my childhood. Growing up I remember watching their first three feature length films; Toy Story (1995), A Bug's Life (1998) and Toy Story 2 (1999) again and again. They were fun, well animated and different to other children's films at the time. They were like the cool uncle to Disney's overbearing, no sex before marriage, traditionalist father figure. They would throw in reference after reference, small little Easter Eggs crammed into every nook and cranny with countless hours of brainstormed backstories to each and every character. And whilst its true that toddlers who weren't born in a McDonalds car park won't understand these more adult references before they hit puberty - this is the beauty of it. The films have no age bracket, parents are just as likely to enjoy these films as their little winners are. Unlike Disney's happy-go-lucky filmscapes, Pixar believe that you are mature enough to hear some hard layered truths about growing up (see Toy Story 1, 2 & 3) and the human condition in general (Inside Out, Finding Nemo and Up to name a few).

Balding man celebrates his prowess

in weaving cohesive narratives.

This isn't to say that I dislike Disney films either, I quite enjoy them however it's a clinical sort of enjoyment. It's been strung through so many focus groups and boards meetings to make sure it's groomed to their family friendly image that it almost reeks of Barbicide, like a hipster at a beard show. It's the Disney charm, whilst you watch the film you are captivated by the story and you love the characters, when you leave the characters are what stay with you. Pixar, by contrast, have a near unparalleled mastery of storytelling at this point second only perhaps to the proverbial sweaty balding man explaining to the police why he was within 200ft of a school. Their successes so far have always outweighed their shortcomings in every one of their projects, even their weakest films (in terms of critical reception) are some of the highest grossing animated films of all-time.

Now, if you've read this far, I will tell you why I have written this self indulgent nonsense. Over the next few days I will be releasing a series of concise reviews on each of Pixar's feature length productions. 'Well isn't that just a posh way of saying that you're going half arse a review?', I hear you cry. Yes... yes it is.

Footnote (to answer the questions nobody cares about):

Q: Is 'filmscape' even a word?

A: Ah, a fine question! I wrestled with this conundrum for many a moon until I googled it and turns out it's a Malaysian production company. So yes, it's a proper noun!

Q: So doesn't that just mean that, in the context you used it at least, it's a nonce word?

A: You're the nonce, shut up.

Happy Death Day

Year Of Release: 2017

Genre: Horror

Run Time: 96mns

Age Rating: 15 (UK)

Director: Christopher Landon

**SPOILER ALERT**

Synopsis

After haughty college sorority girl Tree Gelbman (Jessica Rothe), wakes up on her birthday in the college dorm room of Carter Davis (Israel Broussard), she carries on her day as usual. However after leaving her house later that night to attend a house party she is ambushed and murdered in an underpass by a masked assailant dressed as her university's mascot. After haughty college sorority girl Tree Gelbman (Jessica Rothe), wakes up on her birthday in the college dorm room of Carter Davis (Israel Broussard), she carries on her day as usual. However after retreating from a creepy underpass on her way to a house party and returning home to find a surprise birthday party waiting for her, she is once again murdered. Tree soon realises that she is experiencing the day of her death on repeat, confiding this information to her new friend Carter they realise that to move past her death day she must find her killer and prevent her murder.

Review

To say that going to see this film was more of a spur of the moment decision than a €2 tattoo in Málaga would be an understatement. Having never seen the trailer in its entirety my only knowledge of the film came from the first 10 or so seconds of the trailer, in which an attractive girl wakes up in a strangers bed and ignores her dad's call. Naturally my sequence of thoughts upon seeing this were that attractive girl, one night stand and daddy issues are pretty much the standard ingredients for a lonely divorced man's search history on a porn site. My second thought however was 'OH good I can skip this advert'! 'How bad can it be' I asked myself as I sat in the cinema, the answer to that is due to the fact that unlike a €2 tattoo it didn't give me hepatitis and similarly to a porno there was a happy ending I can safely state that this film was a surprisingly enjoyable viewing experience.  

A reconstruction of how 'HDD' gained it's identity.

It's well known that it doesn't count as copying if you take a pre-existing formula and change a few plot points and, well 'Happy Death Day' takes that idea and commits the creative equivalent of grand larceny, with the plot bearing a striking resemblance to a plethora of other creative properties. I can only imagine that the producers started off with the words 'Groundhog Day' written in bubble writing in the middle of a whiteboard as they discussed how they could go about making the reboot. This was until one sparkly eyed intern who was bringing them coffee said to them, 'If an original ship is replaced piece by piece over time at what point does it become a new ship?'. Now being producers in Hollywood c.2016 they were not familiar with the concept of originality, so after a quick Google search of the definition they decided that a ship is a new ship after replacing two oars, the crew and stealing the figurehead from a different vessel. Now this similarity could have been its downfall had the film taken itself too seriously and really tried to be a gritty horror, however after an initial jumpy start it settles out into a more light hearted romp much like the film's blatant source of inspiration. What I feel saved this film from falling into the sweaty pit of try hard despair that is usually populated by hipsters and teen wolf enthusiasts, is that instead of trying to seem different and edgy the film poses a moderate sense of self awareness and acceptance of its origins.

Pictured above: Secondary characters from 'HDD'

make a cameo in Chrome's endless runner

It was only after writing an entire paragraph in which I effectively whinged about how underdeveloped all of the characters were within 'Happy Death Day' that I realised that the writers had struck character development gold with the storyline. The simple fact is that, within a world that resets itself everyday leaving only the main character with all of their memories in tact, no character with the exception of the lead role will have any memory of the previous events and will act out their day in the exact same manner over and over. This means that any character development is rendered void by the end of the day leaving the secondary characters as little more than living props for the protagonist to interact with, but in the context of this narrative, that's fine. Saying that though, the secondary characters were by no means weak as strong acting and believable character interactions that played heavily on stereotypes kept them afloat and managed to make them have very defined individual personalities. So even though what the audience see of these characters is little more than a single scene with each of them, they get to see quite a broad view of their personas each time Tree interacts with them in a different way.

A short excerpt from Tree's diary.

The character of Tree Gelbman (our protagonist) is the one character we truly see change in throughout the film's runtime. She starts off as a typical spoilt and rude sorority girl who's greatest achievement up until the start of the film had been keeping her sexual partner count down to two individuals a day, this changes however throughout the course of the movie. By the end of the story the audience have seen their protagonist develop from what was essentially a gobby bus for venereal diseases transform into a much more likeable and respectful character, a change that we have all seen before in various teen movies. However, I couldn't help but feel like Tree's transformation was a lot more of a rewarding viewing experience than I have seen before in this type of character arc, as many times as it's been used. This I feel was due to the touching romance between Tree and the nerdy secondary protagonist Carter, as whilst it's relatively common for the popular girl to end up with the awkward nerd in this sort of film, the character of Tree changes so dramatically to accommodate him into her life. There is one scene in particular in which she has thwarted her would be murderer and holds their life in her hands, however earlier in that scene Carter had been killed after saving her from the attacker. After realising that should she finish her day Carter would be dead forever she hangs herself so that she can be with him again, creating the most powerful scene in the film.

There was only one character that I truly took issue with in 'HDD' and that was Tree's roommate Lori. Now she had spent the vast majority of the film flying completely under the radar acting as a moderately sweet girl who genuinely seemed to like Tree. This illusion was all flipped however in the closing 10 minutes of the film when it was revealed that she had been Tree's masked assailant all along. I remember sitting in the cinema and thinking that the film must have slipped some clever hidden clues along the way about why she was doing this or just some deep seated reason that had been staring me in the face. I was intrigued, I knew I had to give this film a second viewing to look for all of the concealed foreshadowing. But no, the reasoning behind this sweet roommate's vicious murdering spree was that she fancied her teacher (a character that Tree had been shacking up with at the start of the film) and wanted Tree out of the way so that she could move in on him during the wake, or something to that nature. So phoned in was this explanation that even Tree's initial reaction was that of complete confusion. It was at this point that I realised that I no longer cared if they had slipped in subtle hints about Lori's true nature, due to the fact that her whole issue could have been sorted out by spreading a rumour of her rival having chlamydia!

Overall, even when taking into account that the whole plot of the film rests entirely on the idea that the best way to stop two people from having sex is by killing one of them, I would recommend 'HDD' as a film to watch, if only once. Due to a comedic script that veers towards the self aware and strong performances from it's cast, 'Happy Death Day' overcomes the issues that it could have faced had it tried to sever all ties from it's inspiration.

Scoring

                                                                   

                                                                    Final Score: 14

     

Footnote (to answer the questions nobody cares about):

Q: What is your favourite species of cacti?

A: I personally enjoy the Echinocactus Platyacanthus due to their variety of uses in traditional sweet production and weaving

Q: What foot size are you?

A: 6' 1"

IT (2017)

Year of Release: 2017

Genre: Horror

Run Time: 135mns

Age Rating: 15 (UK)

Director: Andrés Muschietti

**SPOILER ALERT**

Synopsis

When Bill Denbrough's (Jaeden Lieberher) young brother Georgie goes missing from their home town of Derry, Maine the adults of the town treat it as just another missing child on an ever growing list of similar cases. Refusing to accept his brother's fate, Bill, along with his gang known as the 'Losers Club', try to uncover the mystery surrounding the recent spate of child disappearances. Soon however almost every member of the gang has a run in with Pennywise, a child eating creature in the guise of a clown, these meetings lead the gang to the conclusion that Pennywise is behind the disappearances. Knowing that adults would not believe the truth, the 'Losers' decide that they must deal with 'IT' themselves, overcoming bullies, parents and their worst fears for a final confrontation with 'IT' they must come together in order to stop the bloodshed that plagues their town.

Review

My usual opinion of horror films is that if I wanted to pay to soil myself I'd fork out the 20p for the use of a public toilet, as opposed to doing it in a room full of strangers. However when I heard that they were making a film out of Stephen King's 'IT' I was drawn to interest immediately as I had heard good things about the 90's miniseries. Having never watched this miniseries myself due to both my lack of existence upon it's original release and a crippling fear of clown like beings, I put the 'IT' [2017] in the back of my mind as one to watch for reasons unknown to even myself. I eventually decided that it was the impending arrival of my long overdue transition into manhood that got me into that theatre seat. This theory however was overruled approximately 3 minutes into the film when any testicles that may have been growing recoiled in terror as I realised that I had 132 minutes left of the film and a countdown clock on my bladder that was measured only in seconds.

The Problem with 80's horror films

Whilst I have nothing against horror as a genre, I feel that it can be one of the weaker genres in terms

of overall quality. I know that many people will disagree and spout about the 'classics' such as 'Nightmare on Elm Street' and that's fair enough, horror as a genre did have quite the golden era in the 80's with memorable campy horror flicks flooding theatres throughout the decade. But, like a French aristocrat in the 1700's these old horror films sorely lack something. The heart's in the right place but it doesn't look quite right as storytelling is only half the experience of cinema and sadly these films sorely lack the visuals to appeal to today's audience. This trope reversed in more recent years with horrors using updated visuals but completely forgetting that they needed writing staff. The combination of both of these aspects is where 'IT' scores it's [skid]marks for me.

The writers for 'IT' admittedly had very strong source material to begin with but even baring that in mind they created one of the best screenplays I have ever witnessed. The film was a truly terrifying spectacle throughout, not because I was worried that something would jump out but because most of the film had a constant dark and uncertain atmosphere only emphasised by Pennywise's unpredictable nature, it was due to this that I spent a great portion of this film trying to retain both dignity and control over my sphincter. This feeling of dread was juxtaposed entirely by the scenes in which the young cast were on the screen together. These moments contained some of the most heartwarming acting I've seen, the friendships seem genuine with quite a few of moments of hilarity provided by Richie (Finn Wolfhard), who's character fires off juvenile jokes like Adam Sandler on speed. Unlike Adam Sandler however these jokes are not forced or out of place and fit the character perfectly, providing a sense of ease before throwing you back into the turbulence of the horror, this contrast amplifying both the horror and calm equally. 

The casting for 'IT' was quite the ball-pit of unknown actors which, when recreating a much beloved material that has a fanbase the size of a small country, is the equivalent of sticking your genitals into a tank of prejudgemental piranhas. Andrés Muschietti however must have decided that he had a manhood to spare because he took the risk to include no real well known names in his cast. However, as they so frequently do, the fanboys had to eat their words and whatever else they'd claimed they would consume if the film turned out well because the cast all gave astounding performances not least Bill Skarsgård as Pennywise. It would have been a near Herculean task for even a seasoned actor to fill Pennywise's size 32's, previously occupied by the legendary Tim Curry, however Skarsgård, a man with fewer acting credits to his name than I have GCSEs, managed to give one of the most chilling and memorable performances of a villain in recent memory.

Skarsgård at 6'3" falls towards the top of this
Fear to Limb Length chart.

Skarsgård's performance was constantly brilliant on a mentally scarring level throughout the films runtime with every minute of his screen time seeping with menace. The slow burning threat that is always in the background of 'IT' is what makes this such a strong film and the simple fact is that this threat would not be present without Skarsgård providing his unique take on the character, introducing a new generation of viewers to the joys of coulrophobia. I can't however talk about the cast without mentioning the child actors. Now child actors can normally only fall into 2 categories: shit or cute enough to cover up the fact that they can't act, however the children of 'IT' all gave colourful and believable performances that culminated into the most watchable 2 hours and 15 minutes of film that I have viewed through tears of terror.

Overall 'IT (2017)' is a well shot, atmospheric ode to a classic novel that I would rank with the likes of 'Stand By Me' as it was as rewarding of an experience as it was terrifying. Both lighthearted juvenile fun and dark disturbing imagery brings 'IT' into a league of it's own with the image of Pennywise's dismaying interpretation of a Cossack dance staying with me until my dying breath.

Scoring:

Final Score: 18

Footnote (to answer the questions nobody cares about):

Q- What is the thickness of your ideal writing paper?

A- It's has changed over time, currently it is 80gsm however I did go through a rather embarrassing stage in my teen years in which I would only write on 100gsm paper.

Q- Did you copy and paste Bill Skarsgård's name every time you used it in this review because you couldn't figure out how to get the 'å' symbol?

A- Yes.