filmbufferx

To the hundreds of poor dullards starved of real entertainment and good storytelling who are raving about this film and Tom Hardy's performance in it, you are likely the reason Hollywood is turning out such limp trash most days of the week. I ignored VENOM at the cinemas and watched it instead on DVD with my mouth agape at how annoyingly puerile the film is. Then again, I'm past the age of bed wetting and know how to read so I'm obviously not the target audience.

One element of the film I found interesting was its strong socialist message that pits the plight of America's poor, homeless and marginalised against the amoral excesses and indulgences of the rich who quite literally make their money by exploiting the poor and desperate. It's a fascinating subplot although of course its a message lost on its kiddie audience who want big bang smash boobs.

Elements of VENOM reminded me of the reviled and largely forgotten 1997 anti-superhero film SPAWN, although primitive CG aside, that film, which of course is terribly flawed, is still significantly better.The least annoying parts of the film are undoubtedly between Williams and Hardy, but not even Williams could save the lifeless two-dimensionality of the screenplay. Williams is the more nuanced actor of the two leads, while Hardy has always gravitated towards grotesque, excessive roles that lack subtlety. Then again, subtlety and nuance is something that contemporary juvenile American audiences (a tautology if ever there was one) simply cannot abide.

The true standout in the film was Riz Ahmed who played his villain very straight and never ventured into histrionics or excess. His performance was so chillingly pedestrian that when he becomes Riot the character loses all sense of threat to a silly Decepticon wannabe. I guess his underplayed performance fell off the radar for a lot of folks but its the emotionlessness and lack of empathy that made him a true villain, revealing what it takes to make it big in America.

I was gobsmacked to read the claim from many reviewers that the film is not formulaic, because VENOM is absolutely color-by-numbers filmmaking that feels like it belongs in a Michael Bay movie pack. You could pretty much set your watch to the inciting incident and all those other formulaic screenplay structures that have reduced commercial filmmaking to telling lifeless repetitive stories. Indeed, the film is so horribly Michael Bay that the dialogue between Eddie Brock and Venom is uncannily like something I'd see in a TRANSFORMERS movie. "What's wrong with that?" I hear all the four-year-olds scream. I rest my case.

Few things on TV are as tedious as watching a celebrity stiffly deliver unfunny jokes while his sycophantic late night infomercial audience, excited just to be on TV, guffaws enthusiastically at absolutely everything (I've seen too many laugh-like-your-life-depends-on-it audiences in recent times). None of the jokes fly (few even get out of hangar), and the thing is, McHale looks like he knows he's not funny and his jokes are meh. His broad shoulders are nowhere near wide enough to carry a show with this sort of platform and it shows on his face as he smirks awkwardly, as if apologising to his career. Maybe that's the joke. Netflix has delivered some very good comedy, yet in recent days most of it has been ho-hum non-starters, and if the first episode of "The Joel McHale Show with Joel McHale" is anything to go by, this is a non-starter living on borrowed time.

THE VOID is heavy on practical special effects but lacks a strong core with which to build its story around. There is so much going on in the film, and yet it simultaneously feels empty. It plays like a random set of events without a logical centre to hold it all together. Even cerebral horror (which this isn't) needs a clear and cohesive core from which to operate.

The big problem is that the film is so derivative. I notice a lot of reviewers mentioning John Carpenter's THE THING, which is rather insulting to John Carpenter. Perhaps this says more about reviewers who have seen anywhere near enough films to be able to write a meaningful review, or who spend too much time watching just one type of film to really get a good grasp of what cinema can do. If anything, THE VOID is much more closely related to something like SPOOKIES (1986) or, JACK BROOKS: MONSTER SLAYER (2007), the "Pro-Life" episode of MASTERS OF HORROR than anything Carpenterian. Yes, there's a lot of Clive Barker going on and overdoses of Lovecraftian imagery, which Carpenter likewise employs both in THE THING, PRINCE OF DARKNESS and IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS, but THE VOID has more in common with Stewart Gordon and Brian Yuzna's versions of Lovecraft.

As well as the aforementioned films, there are clearly nods to HELLRAISER, REANIMATOR, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD and PHANTASM. THERE'S EVEN SOME CYBER PUNK THROWN IN FOR GOOD MEASURE. It's just a shame all this doesn't add up to a satisfying movie experience.