CRITICAL / OPINION FILM – “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” follows the first opus carried, already at the time, by Tom Hardy, but this time with Andy Serkis in the direction for a result far from convincing.
Venom 2 : same recipe, or almost, as the previous one
In 2018, Sony Pictures decides to produce a spin-off of the saga Spiderman venom centric. The studio entrusts the production of the film to Ruben Fleischer, best known for his two pleasant Welcome to Zombieland. Tom Hardy, who has wanted to bring this character to the screen for some time, takes on the role of Eddie Brock, aka Venom. The rest of the cast consists of Michelle Williams and Riz Ahmed as the big bad guy. Yes Venom receives terribly bad reviews from the trade press, he seduces part of the public for his comic side and series B “I-don’t care”. At the box office, the film still brought in more than $ 856 million in revenue (for a budget of 100 million). A score that pushes Sony to produce a sequel.
But in the face of bad reviews, the studio decides to part ways with Ruben Fleischer and replaces him with Andy Serkis, who recently staged the astonishing Mowgli. Unfortunately, this change of director does not bring anything new or beneficial to the franchise. Venom: Let There Be Carnage is far too similar to its big brother. Sony makes the decision to serve the same outdated recipe from a superhero movie that’s 15 years overdue on its time. It’s simple, Sony just hasn’t figured out how to bring Venom to the big screen. This cult comic book antagonist Spiderman is a dark, silent, and extremely violent black supervillain. And even when he evolves into a more measured anti-hero, he keeps appreciably this same cold and brutal character.
Illogical treatment of the character
As in the first film, Sony decides to take an unwelcome comedy approach. Venom: Let There Be Carnage is a fatty teen movie, where Venom is written as a talkative, uninteresting sub-Deadpool. Insufferable, cartoonish and ubiquitous voiceover, Venom spends his time making questionable jokes and behaving like an annoying prepubescent teenager. The ridiculous treatment of the character is even worse than in the first installment. Andy Serkis pushes all the sliders of what was wrong in the previous installment to its maximum. What emerges is a bloated blockbuster, in total freewheeling, where nothing goes, be it the ignoble CGIs, the sluggish interpretation of Woody Harrelson in Carnage, or the total lack of staging of Andy Serkis.
Sony once again skipped an R rating, leaving Venom: Let There Be Carnage with a nice ban in PG-13. The violence inherent in the character is therefore unfortunately watered down. Which is a pretty annoying point when you want to adapt Venom to the big screen. Likewise, did we really want to see Venom begging for chocolate, hunting chickens for food, playing the psychiatrists of a broken hero, or still go to a Halloween party to give a thoughtful speech about racial discrimination? Quintessence of nonsense and of an emetic benevolence for a film which has understood nothing of its original substance.
The worst superhero movie since Fantastic Four
Corn failure of Venom: Let There Be Carnage does not come down to a simple mistreatment of the protagonist. The staging of this second opus does not add anything additional to the first film. Which proves the talent that has Hollywood to pump any personality of their directors. The action is completely unreadable and is reminiscent of the superhero movies of the mid-2000s: Elektra, Daredevil or Fantastic Four by Tim Story.
Woody Harrelson offers one of the worst performances of his career in the shoes of Carnage. Strong in cabotinage, the writing of his character does not really help. Carnage has no depth, no thickness. An empty antagonist, simply there to serve a scenario of disconcerting simplicity, and a final climax expected to pit the hero against his nemesis. Shriek brings even less to the story, and Naomie Harris should have stayed on the side of James bond which offered him better visibility.
Venom 2 thus accumulates bad pirouettes. The film offers tasteless dialogue that revolves around love issues (even with bad guys), and around the popularity of Eddie Brock. Even Tom Hardy seems detached from the project and its interpretation, and does not particularly seek to look good. The only one who shoots …