Venom

Mild spoilers, I guess. TBH there's not much to spoil.

The sooner studios that aren't Marvel realize that when dealing with superhero movies, they're so far behind the game that it would be wiser and more productive to invent an entirely new game, the sooner the superhero genre can get the revitalization it so desperately needs. Sadly, I expect it won't happen until the genre has first died off completely. And Venom is just one more nail in a very, very large coffin.

Look: I gave it the best chance I possibly could. I tried. It didn't. You let me down, EDDIE.

It's not awful. No, okay, it is awful, but not any more so than your average by-the-book Marvel movie. And it does have a few things to it that Disney Marvel won't do -- like semi-horror scenes and tastefully biting people's heads off -- but in the grand scheme of things that amounts just about nil. It makes the movie stand out from the pack as much as Ant-Man and the Wasp stood out from the pack because people shrink in it. In other words, yes, there are some different details in the dressing, but it's all still the same stale formula.

Even worse for Venom than Ant-Man though, because Sony doesn't have Marvel's secret sauce recipe. Instead they copy and fudge their way through, but the template they're trying to recreate is all wrong for the character. Marvel origins are exclusively redemption arcs, but Eddie and Venom are supposed to be an anti-hero. And "he's an anti-hero because he kills people sometimes" doesn't cut it, okay? Eddie ends up a better person than he starts and is in perfect control and harmony with Venom. Even in The-Movie-We-Shall-Not-Mention (Spider-Man 3, shhhh) Venom offered a temptation to Eddie that was appealing -- an addiction. Here, they're just kinda... buddies.

"EDDIE, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."

I guess it was meant to be funny, and it almost was, but at the sake of compelling character. They also could've gone the route of: Eddie is a determined good guy; Venom is a determined bad guy; but they're stuck together and have to make it work. They did a little, early on. I guess I'm fixating on the way everything concluded. But come on -- the movie stopped right as it was starting to get interesting, so of course I am! I just wanted the status quo to be balanced. At first Venom is in control, then Eddie is in control but allows Venom privileges. I wanted more like the part where they're arguing about whether they should put their hands up or not -- but without the cheesiness.

I'm sure there's any number of ways the dynamic could've been more compelling. As a start, maybe cast a different actor as Venom's voice. It's hard to banter with yourself, you know? The problem is just that they put in minimum effort all around. Not that they made the wrong choices; that they made no choices. The whole time it felt uncomfortable, like it was being forced into a shape that didn't fit it. They had their risk-less, badly-formed mold, and their unusual, kinda dark, little baby story -- and maybe they were scared to try anything crazy, or maybe they just wanted to appease an audience, but they neglected it, plain and simple.

OR, they could've had Eddie lose Venom for longer, and have him actually try to get him back.

Poor Tom Hardy. I genuinely thought, when the teaser trailer released, that I would enjoy the movie no matter what, just because he was the lead, and there wasn't much CGI in sight. They even said Venom would have only 5 mins of screen time. They were right. I counted. But he was still always present -- reaching out with his CGI arms and saying "EDDIE" over and over, and not allowing a single moment's peace. And then there's three other symbiotes to consider. All in all, the movie is teeming with them. Hardy does his best, but it really makes no difference. He merely seems at odds with the movie's tone and lack of depth to explore.

Everyone else -- Riz Ahmed, Michelle Williams, whoever played her doctor boyfriend -- I couldn't care less about, except Jenny Slate. I tried to like Eddie, but Jenny's character was the only one I felt anything for. She had a unique and important position in the story, she had a dilemma, conflict, threat... she should've been the main character, or at least the main supporting character. What a wasted opportunity. I didn't fall for the rumor it was going to be rated R (I did fall for the Spidey cameo one though, and that was a whopping BUST) but man, they should've gone for the R. They had to go out of their way to keep it PG-13.

Every time the camera does a "tasteful turn-away" you can feel the regret.

And the times you could feel the want of violence were the best -- when the tone edged on horror and the dark comedy got actually dark. They could've had something moody and strange -- like The Predator with it's I-do-what-I-want tone that audiences had to decide to take or leave. Or it might've been the blockbuster version of Upgrade, just with big action sequences and franchise-able characters.

It did remind me of both those films at times, but in ways that made me sigh and wish I were watching them instead. Venom isn't the worst superhero movie ever, but it is... it's just... it's... not even worth a wrap-up line.

All the Money in the World

Spoilers.

This remarkably cold movie tells the true story of the kidnapping of the grandson of the richest man in the world circa 1973. J. Paul Getty (Christopher Plummer) is the grandfather who refuses to pay the ransom. The boy's mother Gail (Michelle Williams) spends her time pestering her father-in-law for the cash and working with his personal agent (Mark Wahlberg) who has instructions to find and rescue Paul III (Charlie Plummer) as inexpensively as possible.

Directed by Ridley Scott. And it feels it.

This whole film is a character study in coldness -- using a chilly aloof tone as if it were a medium, such as oils or charcoal. Most obviously, it is tinted literally in cold colors; dark, lifeless pale blues and sickly yellows. This bothered me slightly. When color grading is obvious to me it takes me out of the picture. The beginning was in black and white, and it was the only time the film looks truly beautiful. I wish it had stayed that way, but the otherworldly color grading was intentional, and knowing that helps a little.

Then, famously, Mr. Getty's steely and calculating actions. He claims to love his grandson, yet openly refuses to pay. "I have fourteen grandchildren," he says, "if I start paying ransoms, I'll have fourteen kidnapped grandchildren." And there's no denying the logic in his reasoning, no matter how repulsive and frigid it feels. But he seems to use this reasoning as an excuse, pinching pennies in spectacular fashion and hesitantly spending his billions on inanimate pieces of art which he talks to with tenderness unused toward the living.

He is affectionate toward Paul as a kid, which only makes his later carelessness worse.

The monologue in which he explains why he values beautiful things over people was most telling to me. Things don't change; people do. I found his character magnificently fascinating, and Christopher Plummer pulled off the part beautifully, with an underlying softness in his eye that hints at endless complexities within this enigmatic man. He did a similar job with a similar character in Nicholas Nickleby, but that didn't degrade the fascination or entertainment he provided at all. I'm glad he was the last-minute replacement, if only because he didn't require prosthetics, so his performance came through effortlessly, and with intricacy.

He was the one character you expect coldness from. It was unexpected in the character of Gail. It would've been endlessly annoying if she had been panicking throughout the film, but her focused calmness came across at times as just calculating as he father-in-law; intentionally, I'm sure. As the character who drives the story, it's interesting to see her contrasted with Getty as they both work essentially the same way to achieve their goal, only hers is a noble goal. But underneath she still has an anxiousness and desperation that occasionally reveals itself. Even in the end when she and Paul are reunited she still doesn't melt, but instead redirects her strength to support and assure him.

The kind of nice kidnapper was not a real person.

Paul spends the movie growing more and more passive, until you think he's adopted that Getty stony demeanor permanently. When he finally does break down it is the antithesis that concludes the cold pattern and the film. Strangely, the warmest relationship is between Paul and the kidnapper who's assigned to guard him (Romain Duris). From being friendly and trusting, to turning a blind eye when Paul tries to escape, to actively saving his life, he's the film's most personable character. Yet the film is sure to show him receiving and pocketing his cut of the ransom. No one here is cut and dry.

Though Christopher Plummer is the only actor here whose character is capable of reaching shock-and-awe levels, the rest of the cast puts every bit as much work in, and find their moments to impress. Even Mark Wahlberg who I thought for sure would take me out of the movie was natural in the seriousness and disappeared into his role. Williams commands every scene she's in, and Charlie Plummer is one of my new favorite things -- though I still haven't seen Lean on Pete, the movie that informed me of his existence in the first place. He's got talent that stands out, but perhaps more importantly, he has a naturally magnetic screen presence; something you can't learn.

Though sometimes the point seemed on-the-nose, scenes like these had easy depth and rhythm.

Usually I go into movies hoping that I'll be able to empathize with the characters; here, even regarding a kidnapped teen, inducing sympathy into the audience isn't the goal. These characters are made to be real and complex -- sometimes to the point of seemingly contradicting themselves -- and we are not invited to feel for them, but to observe them; as coldly and calculatingly as they observe the world. It's from this perspective that the film finds its significance. Liberties are taken with the truth of the real-life event to make a more cinematic and impactful ending, but understanding the mission of the film, that was a wise choice.

In short, perhaps this isn't best viewed as a true story. As Paul says to us via voice-over, it's like they're from another planet. Perhaps this story is best viewed as a glass exhibit of strange, cold-blooded caricatures; equipped with a moral to help us see that though we may lack all the money in the world, it was they who lacked in the riches this world has to offer.

The Greatest Showman

....is obviously Hugh Jackman. P.T. Who? Just kidding, but seriously, there's no way this movie would have existed without Hugh Jackman. He is the first and last exceptional thing about this snappy, peppy, and colorful period musical.

The man puts his all into everything he does. A true entertainer.

Jackman is P.T. Barnum, the guy who invented freak shows and curiosity hoaxes. This movie puts him in a much kinder light, presenting him as a dreamer who just wants to put a smile on everyone's face. What they're smiling at might be fake, but the smiles are real! His more greedy side comes through whether it was meant to or not when he calls the "freaks" who work for him his friends in private, but shoos them away in public; and when he goes on tour with a beautiful opera star for no apparent reason. The movie makes out that he's innocent in the situation, but it makes me wonder.

How much is true? How must isn't? I don't know, so I'll set that aside, and review this as if it were all fiction. I imagine that's the accurate assumption to make. It all has a very fantastic feel anyway, as its set vaguely in the 1800's and all the music is super modern, which translates to the dancing styles, and then even seeps into the plot bit. It's a natural thing for a musical to do, but I would have felt more at home watching it on stage. It was like it was set in the period only because it had to be, but it certainly did make for some grand and lovely (however inaccurate) costuming.

Who'd've ever thought that Zac would return to his roots someday and sing manly duets with Hugh Jackman?

The songs are musical pop, and every single one is incredibly catchy and toe-tapping-inducing. They don't much vary in style or general structure, so the easiest way to define them is the scene and dance each accompanied. My favorite was the bar duet between Jackman and Zac Efron -- a society man who joins Barnum's business to the detriment of his societal respect. The dancing on tables and swapping shots between verses was like something out of a classic musical of ye olden days.

That's what surprised me the most. I've never hated Efron or anything, but I've never respected him all that much either. But he was great in this, and strangely seems to have both grown up, and embraced his debatably embarrassing origins of cheesy song and dance and melodramatic romance. This movie has all three of those things for him, but now he just owns it, and it's not cringy or overdone, but just a lot of fun. I enjoyed what they had of romance with him and Zendaya's character, who's a trapeze artist in Barnum's circus. They spend a lot of time focusing on how this was a time when interracial couples were frowned on, and I wished they'd gone a bit deeper than that, but it was a sweet side plot. Their duet that used ropes and acrobatic choreography was one of the movie's best.

About as basic a romance as they come, but classic.

I appreciated that scene a lot because it was the one time the showcased dancing felt truly circus-y. Whenever the circus performances were going on, it was a whole lot of very fun and entertaining dancing, but not much of the freaky or requiring unusual talent. Not that it bored me, but I did wonder why we never saw a significant amount of trapeze performance. Or contortionists. Or a guy who bites head off of chickens. You know -- circus stuff. (Ok, I can see the reasoning behind the chicken thing.) The talent they had was singers and dancers that looked different. There was a tall guy, there was a fat guy, there was a bearded lady; and they were dancers so that's what they did.

So I missed the expected performance moments of "Wow, how in the world did that person DO that?" And don't get me wrong, I was thoroughly entertained, but there was an expectation there, and they failed to meet it. Same with Rebecca Ferguson's character, the opera star. As she was about to sing the first time, I was thinking, "Wow, Rebecca Ferguson is going to sing opera?" But then she didn't. It was belted musical pop just like everything else. I don't remember if the song was good; my main impression was that the style was a let-down. It's just mismanaged expectations.

And to be fair, it's likely that my idea of Barnum's circus is every bit as different from the truth as this movie's is.

Something I should have expected was that the plot was very skimpy and I was dying for more. One moment would be great for a character, and get my hopes up, but then go no further. And that's the traditional way of the musical, but in my defense, they did try to associate themselves with La La Land (they boast the same lyricists) and La La Land explored character through and around the music to a satisfying depth -- but that aspect didn't cross over. Instead they did a normal amount of character for the genre, and it often veered towards being too modernly "relevant" for my taste. Still, I'll take the blame for my dissatisfaction on that one.

An eventual second viewing (which may happen for that one bar scene duet) would likely improve enjoyment, with accurate expectations. Where my expectations were met, all was excellent as advertised. Mainly in two points: First, Hugh Jackman, who from the first beat to the very last, oozes entertaining and immaculately sharp showmanship. The guy is a performer, and a charmer, and he does his job WELL. And secondly, the visual dazzle, which was equally as on point as Jackman. There's always something to see that is pleasing to the eye, even in the stiller talking scenes, and the visual brilliancy of the dance scenes often left me smiling.

The pep is contagious.

Watching this movie for me was like an exercise in the art of smiling at awesome things while simultaneously rolling eyes as silly things. There was about an equal amount of both, and little in between. It's a spectacle worth the sight, if only to be lightly entertained by Hugh and a bunch of other performers who are clearly having a grand time. And though many of the tricks are cheap and fake, I suppose it's true: the smiles are for real.