Why "Venom-2" will seem boring and sometimes unbearable to you

The first part, released in 2018, immediately divided the audience into two camps. Some scolded the picture in every possible way, accusing it of the lack of a coherent plot, terrible graphics and the transformation of a cruel antihero into a comic good-natured person. The other turned out to be quite charming Tom Hardy in the title role, who made jokes every minute - funny and not so much.

But the second "Venom" has even more problems. Here the action lost the remnants of logic, turning into a clumsy sitcom. And the graphics and action have not improved at all.

Plot without explanation

After the events of the first part, journalist Eddie Brock continues to live with the alien symbiote Venom living in his body. He still wants to devour people, but still obeys the host. One day, the hero comes to the cell of the killer Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson), who agrees to reveal the history of the crimes only to him.

Thanks to the abilities of Venom, Eddie independently understands the secrets of the maniac, but accidentally gives him a drop of his blood. The Carnage symbiote now appears in Cletus's body. The villain breaks free and goes in search of his longtime girlfriend. Meanwhile, Brock is arguing with Venom, and he leaves.

To say that the plot is too fast is to say nothing. Perhaps it would even be a plus: not everyone likes a long swing in the plot. Moreover, the authors introduced the main character and his forces in the first part.

The problem is, most of the characters are new. And at the same time, they enter the frame as if the viewer has known everything about them for a long time. For example, the theme of the film will be Cletus' affection for Eddie. But in the first "Venom", the future villain was shown for only a few seconds, and in the sequel, the reasons for such feelings will not be explained either.

The situation is even worse with the appearance of another symbiote. Why did another creature separate from Venom? Why does it look a little different? But most importantly, why do they hate each other so much? They won't even try to answer any of these questions. At the same time, Venom himself at the end will give out a whole tirade about some kind of relationship with offspring.

For those who have read the comics, it will be a little easier: in the film adaptation, the plot was changed, but at least the process of division itself is clear. But those who saw only the first film will remain at a loss.

The friend of the maniac Francis (Naomi Harris) will turn out to be the most incomprehensible character. She has an amazing superpower - the strongest scream. And it could play a great role in the plot: symbiotes are afraid of loud sounds. But the authors simply forget to use this line. The heroine is locked up for years in some research center (what happened to her there will not be told either), and then she goes after Cletus all the time.

The reasons for such a ragged plot can only be guessed at, but the hint lies in the timing of the picture. Against the background of blockbusters lasting two and a half hours, Venom-2 turned out to be even shorter than the first part - only 90 minutes.

Director Andy Serkis claims that he deliberately decided not to stretch the action, adding dynamics (and for some reason calling this approach "masculine"). But it's hard to get rid of the feeling that most of the material was too bad and the authors simply cut out whole chunks of the plot.

Tom Hardy's pantomime

The first film was largely based on the charm and acting of the leading actor. But either the creators of the sequel interpreted the audience's love for Hardy too literally, or, again, a lot of scenes failed, but in Venom-2, the actor just plays funny scenes for most of the picture.

It all starts with his visit to the police station, where Eddie locks himself in the closet and argues with Venom. Then they fight at home, and then even fight. Then they support each other after a difficult conversation with the girl. You can list for a long time. But the bottom line is that there is only Tom Hardy on the screen, who communicates with his own voiceover.

As a result, the first half of the film turns into a strange comedy, as if it came from the nineties. The actor frankly replays, chickens are running around his apartment, which will be devoted to almost a dozen gags. And when the action begins in the frame, it is sure to sarcastically comment on the voice of Venom, that is, the same Hardy. Well at least the offscreen laughter was not added.

The first film sometimes used plot lines from romantic comedies: the hero fought for the girl's love. The second clearly refers to the typical "buddy-movie": there is a conflict between friends, and a temporary separation, and subsequent reunion. Here is just one hero. As if in Lethal Weapon the whole story was built on the conflicts between Mel Gibson's character and the voices in his head.

Indistinct and boring action

In addition to his dramatic debut "Breathe for Us", Andy Serkis has not yet shown himself in the best way in directing. His "Mowgli" was scolded for both the plot and the quality of the special effects. With the first, "Venom" also did not work out from the very beginning, but there was still hope for the second component. It's not in vain that Serkis is a recognized master of motion capture and other interesting techniques that are used in science fiction cinema. He not only played Gollum in The Lord of the Rings and Caesar in the Planet of the Apes franchise, but also worked on the rendering of his characters.

Alas, here the new "Venom" has absolutely nothing to brag about. In a strange way, the director abandoned his favorite motion capture, leaving the symbiotes purely computer-based. Moreover, Serkis described in detail how the plasticity of creatures was created, explained the difference between them. But in fact, the differences are not felt at all: in the frame, two weightless special effects are again fighting, from which there is no sense of realism and massiveness.

They are trying to make their fights more dynamic by using too fast editing: in action scenes, the camera switches literally every two or three seconds. But because of this, the action is simply difficult to follow: frames flicker senselessly, and slightly “soapy” special effects are often simply hidden in the dark. With the exception of a few beautiful static plans, which have already been used with might and main in the promotional campaign, there is simply nothing to say about the visual.

It is even worse that Serkis uses the most standard moves from the action movies in the plot as well. The hero sits on the roof at night. The villain is organizing a massacre in the prison. A more banal scene than a fight in a church is hard to imagine. And knowing that the characters are afraid of loud sounds, it is easy to guess what detail of the situation will interfere with them from a certain moment.

And do not forget that the film strictly adheres to the "children's" age rating PG-13. And the Sony studio interprets the restrictions too literally. Here, even Carnage is not particularly cruel: the camera carefully turns away if he kills someone, and then the bodies are shown very neat without a drop of blood.

Compared to "Venom-2", even the conventional "Alita: Battle Angel" seems to be the height of realistic violence: there at least the androids smashed each other to pieces. It also shows the most sterile and boring action game that turns a short action movie into an unbearably drawn out spectacle.

A very funny story happened with the first "Venom". It hit the box office almost parallel to Lee Whannell's Upgrade, in which he played Logan Marshall-Green, very similar to Tom Hardy. The films have a similar plot, but a less well-known analogue, whose filming was cheaper, looks more holistic and interesting, and the visual series in it is very witty. Having seen "Venom-2", I immediately want to write an open letter to Wannell with a request to release the second "Upgrade", because I want to see a better version of this story.

But this is, of course, a joke. But seriously, Serkis's film is the embodiment of literally all possible mistakes of on-screen comics. He does not really tell anything about most of the characters, does not please with interesting action, and the special effects seem outdated. And even Tom Hardy's acting does not help, because his comedy gags do not fit well into the plot.