Venom Review

Venom first appeared on another planet, when all the Marvel heroes and villains were gathered together to fight, in the twelve issue mini-series called Secret Wars (1984). 

At the time, it was just known as the 'black costume' that Spider-man discovered after ripping his regular Spidey-tights. It all seemed harmless enough, although there was the usual fan outcry hating the new look. When the limited series ended, and Spidey returned home, the plot thickened, as the costume seemed to slowly take over. Eventually, it bonded itself to Peter, and it really didn't want to let go. When he finally was able to literally pry it from his body, the alien blob slinked away only to find reporter Eddie Brock. The alien symbiote bonded with him, and called itself Venom... Marvel fanboys around the world squee'd with excitement. 

In 2007, super genius film director Sam Raimi was forced to include Venom in Spider-man 3. Yes, forced by Sony due to the popularity of the character. He really didn't want to do it... and it shows. The results were some of the most cringe-worthy moments in any comic book movie ever made. 

And now, in 2018, Sony releases a stand-alone Venom movie. Did they learn from their mistakes?

To clarify, while this movie is based on a Marvel comic book, it is NOT part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe of movies. Those movies are released through Disney. Venom is owned by Sony. So, there is zero connection between Venom and Thanos, or Avengers, or Captain America, or Iron Man, or Thor, or Ant-man, etc. It all has to do with copyrights that are equal parts confusing, and frustrating.

The popular opinion is to hate this movie, because how can you have Venom without Spider-man? So without the convoluted Secret Wars origin story, they simply went with the 'alien-life-form-brought-back-from-space' story, which was... acceptable. The 2007 movie used the same idea, as well as the original animated series, so it works based on that simple premise. 

I can't say I hated the movie, but there was still plenty to dislike. The most painful being the horrendous computer effects. To put it into perspective, The Abyss was one of the first movies to ever use CGI in 1989. There was a scene where they created a moving blob of water that looked pretty realistic. Thirty years ago, that scene looked far more realistic than any of the scenes with Venom. Did they not have a budget for the most important aspect of this movie, or did they just not care?

I'm also not a fan of Tom Hardy, who plays Eddie Brock. I don't see any charisma or personality in him whatsoever. You could replace him with a paper sack, and I would be as equally entertained. Although, in the 2007 version, we had Topher Grace, so... upgrade? 

I did however enjoy some of the banter between Brock and Venom. I might have even lol'd just a bit. Plus, if you overlook how bad the effects are, there are some good action moments... when the lens flare and smoke wasn't completely overpowering the scene.

When you compare Venom with the 2004 Halle Berry Catwoman movie, and the 2015 Fantastic Four reboot... it's not that bad! 

(Yes, you can use this quote for promotional purposes if you 'd like). 

If you're interested in seeing this, just lower your expectations, expect some bad effects and a few 'questionable' writing decisions, and you might like it. And if not, it's only ninety minutes long, so you won't lose too much time out of your life.

Deeesher

Evil Dead Again Review

In 1981, a filmmaker and his friends were broke.  So like most broke guys, they decided to make a movie.  They took out loans, begged, borrowed and (reportedly) sold their souls, and at the end of the day, they made a movie called "The Book of the Dead".  At the end of the next day, they changed the title to "The Evil Dead".  And it was good ... or actually evil.

The acting was horrible, the effects were silly, and the overall production just looked cheap.  But, it had a very dark soul!  *insert spooky laugh here*.  It had classic moments that were just creepy, and it was just good clean fun to watch.  Well, it was evil bloody fun to watch, if you're into that sort of thing.

As you may have guessed by now, that filmmaker was Sam Raimi, and one of his friends starring in it, was Bruce Campbell.  Sam eventually created Darkman, and the Tobey Mcquire version of Spider-man, (and most recently Oz the Great and Powerful).  Bruce, as you know, is best known for... being Bruce Campbell.

The Evil Dead eventually spawned Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn, and one of my favorite movies ever, Army of Darkness.  The series did get less creepy and more outright fun as it went on.  But the original will always be a classic, and there will never be another like it.

Wait...  What do you mean someone just remade it???   Dammit...!

Fine.  Here we are in 2013 and someone decides to bring it back to life after so many years.  I was extremely apprehensive, however, the trailer for it looked impressive.  Could they do it?  Can they recreate the creepy tension from the original and give it new life (or new death)?

The first thing you notice, is they hired actors.  Maybe none of them were Oscar winners, but they did a believable job, and you could tell they got paid more than Sam Raimi's friends from the original.  

The next thing you'll notice, is they wrote a story.  The original was essentially kids going to a cabin to, probably have sex and do drugs.  But this is 2013, where kids everywhere are getting clean and sober.  Which brings us to the plot.  Mia (actress Jane Levy) has decided she's had enough drugs in her life, and gathered her friends together to help her clean up once and for all.  Well, I'm guessing it's drugs she pours down the well.  It could be a heavy cinnamon addiction, since they never specifically say what it was.  But the thing to remember is, there is a fine line between withdrawal symptoms and demon possession.

There are other major plot changes from the original.  But the storyline is not the only place these movies differ!  The list goes on...

One painful difference was the cabin itself.  The original version gave the cabin life (uncredited), and a personality.  Sam Raimi made it someplace uncomfortable and disturbing.  The remake, made it a cabin.  Sure it had some disturbing rooms within, but it was still just a cabin in the woods, (not to be mistaken for the awesome 2011 horror film, Cabin in the Woods, which pays homage to many great horror films, including The Evil Dead, which you NEED to see if you have not!).

Another noticeable change was, the original used very cheesy but acceptable demonic makeup.  The remake, gave them funny contacts, dirt, and blood... and that's it.

Even the Angry Rape Tree, which was very popular in the original, didn't seem so angry here.  It seemed like it accidentally raped her, and maybe even apologized after.

You could tell, the makers of the new version were obviously fans of the original, and I do respect that.  There were plenty of nice homages to the original, but the remake seemed to be missing the heart and soul.  You would think, a soulless horror movie is a good thing.  But I prefer the dark soul of the original *insert spooky laugh again*.

Despite all these holes in it's life, the remake is still a decent horror movie. You get plenty of blood, and lots of screams mixed with cringe-worthy moments.

Go see it, but the original is still King in my book of the dead.

So hail to the king, baby...

Deeesher

Another Spiderman Movie

%@&#! reboots. I hate them. I throw up in my mouth a bit every time I hear the word. Sure there are occasional happy surprises like the 1978 reboot of 1956's Invasion of the Body Snatchers, or 2009's Friday the 13th, or the 1982 remake of the 1951 movie The Thing (and yes I am ignoring the 2011 reboot here). Even the Fright Night reboot was kind of okay. But sadly, 98% of the time, reboots are only a painful reminder of how stupid most movies of the 21st century are.

But wait... What if you reboot a successful movie franchise that started in the 21st century??? What an amazingly moronic idea! With that, Sony Pictures presents: The Amazing Spider-man! Not to be confused with Spider-man 2002.

Do I really need to tell anyone what this movie is about? It's another origin story. I'm pretty sure everyone in America from 8 to 80 could write an origin story for Spider-man. Radioactive spider bites friendly neighborhood nerd... Do the math. Then add Gwen Stacy and The Lizard.

As much as I loved the 2002 version, this 'reboot' wasn't bad. Sure it had it's flaws, and I would never call it 'Amazing', but it was one more decent superhero movie from a growing list of other enjoyable superhero movies.

Director Marc Webb, does a decent job, but I'll always wonder if he got the job because of his name. You might remember him from one of his other action movies like... um... Well okay, he had a romantic comedy (500 Days of Summer), that I heard was fairly successful. At times his action was the typical quick edits, and close-ups so you couldn't quite see what was going on, but not often enough to annoy. He does deserve a pat on the head for his efforts, but he's no Sam Raimi.

Now let's compare our Peters. Tobey Maguire (2002 Peter) vs Andrew Garfield (2012 Peter). This was a surprisingly close race in my mind. I've always liked Tobey's Peter, but I have to admit, I quickly accepted Garfield's Peter without a second thought. There were moments where I felt Garfield was a bit too cocky, but in the end, he fit nicely.

I was also quick to accept Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben. I was worried I would only see The Illusive Man from Mass Effect, but he was just as good for Peter as Cliff Robertson was in 2002.

Now let's talk about the not-so-amazing parts.

I love Emma Stone. I wouldn't say I'm stalker material yet, but I did consider it after seeing her in Zombieland. However, I couldn't see her as Gwen Stacy, 17 year old high school genius with an internship in a huge high tech facility who has access to every room in the building. But then, what do I know about 17 year old girls these days.

I also thought Doc Connors (aka The Lizard, aka actor Rhys Ifans) was a bit one dimensional. And as impressive as they made The Lizard, they should have made a bit more effort on his face. Is a lizard snout so difficult to animate???

Then we have Sally Field as Aunt May. This worked if you forget everything you know about Aunt May. But I think at this point in her career, Sally Field will always be Sally Field in anything she does. And Denis Leary was a fine Captain Stacy but nothing 'amazing' here either.

The biggest problem this movie suffers from, is retelling another origin story. We know where he came from! You told us a few years ago, and we remember cause you did it right!  If you forget everything you know about Spider-man from comics, or the 2002 version, it's not a bad story.  The things it did well were done very well, but Amazing Spider-man will never be Amazing like The Avengers, or Iron Man, or even 1978 Superman. I give it a pretty good, but I wonder how well tickets to The Pretty Good Spider-man would sell.

Now let's compare it to Electric Company Spider-man, Nicholas Hammond 1977 Spider-man, and of course, Japanese Spider-man!

Deeesher