Director Report Card: Destin Daniel Cretton (2026)

 

7. Spider-Man: Brand New Day

Getting to direct a "Spider-Man" movie must be a real double-edged sword by this point. He's one of those superheroes that nearly everybody has strong feelings about. Thousands more kids grew up watching the cartoons and movies or playing the video games or with the toys than those that ever bothered to read a comic book. You're going to be judged and scrutinized by hardcore nerds and filthy casuals with spider symbol decals on their cars. At the same time, a film actually about Spider-Man – and not one of his villains or a blind lady he talked to a few times – is guaranteed to be a massive success. Also to consider is that the Marvel Cinematic Universe house style is so ingrained at this point that it's unlikely to make any filmmaker a household name. I'm sure Jon Watts and Marc Webb have done just fine for themselves. However, their stints with the web crawler did little to raise their profiles beyond earning the scorn of hyper-online nerds. These types of gigs are surely beneficial to the directors' bank accounts at the cost of any public artistic identity.

So you're Destin Daniel Cretton. You've directed some well regarded indies and two Oscar Bait dramas that didn't win Oscars. Marvel scoops you up to direct a project conceived during the period when every movie they were making, no matter how obscure the source character was, became a huge success... But the movie releases after the pandemic, when the air is fast running out of that balloon. I thought "Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings" was among the best of the studio's post-"Endgame" slate and it did okay at the box office. Nevertheless, a prospective sequel and spin-off series got lost in the corporate shuffle to re-right the ship and your leading man said some kind of weird shit online. You're going to direct the next "Avengers" movie but then you aren't, because that project's leading man got real-deal canceled and took the entire planned direction for the franchise with him. Your prestige mini-series about Japanese-American soldiers in World War II is slow to develop and another Marvel TV project – the shrinking number of people still watching those like it – is the only thing you've actually directed in the last four years. Your Disney corporate overlords offer you the next "Spider-Man," maybe to make up for the "Avengers" fiasco. Do you take the job? Of course, you do. "Spider-Man: Brand New Day" has opened to predictably enormous box office, so I'm betting Cretton is feeling fine about all this. But what of the film itself? Let us investigate further. 

Despite taking its subtitle from a controversial comic story line, "Spider-Man: Brand New Day" is not set in the aftermath of a deal with the devil and Aunt May is still dead. Instead, the new status quo established by "No Way Home's" ending has Peter Parker forgotten by all his friends and loved ones. He has focused his life entirely on being Spider-Man. While this has made the web head New York City's most beloved hero, it's left Peter feeling isolated. His spider powers begin to develop in strange ways, his body producing organic webbing and Peter going into rage fueled black-outs where he acts dangerously. Soon, a new threat emerges: A psychic presence that can inhabit any body and seems determined to break into the Department of Damage Control. This new villain directly targets MJ, who Peter still loves but who no longer remembers him. The Spider-Man is going to have to learn to control his new powers, consider the cost of reconnecting with those who have forgotten him, and unravel the true motive behind this enemy all at once.

Filmmakers keep saying they have a desire to make a "street level" Spider-Man movie. While the character is certainly involved in universe reshuffling shenanigans regularly, most of his villains are of more humble ambitions than world dominance. Of course, every superhero movie has to be an event now, meaning the last several appearance of the character have been crossovers or globe-trotting adventures. At various points in development, it was promised that "Brand New Day" would finally refocus on the neighborhood part of Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man. And for about a half-hour in the first half, it actually is that. There's a highly energetic montage devoted to showing encounters with a series of B-list villains, each one patterned directly after a classic cover. This is part of a longer first act, in which Spidey is directly in contact with the chief of police and simply stopping whatever petty super-crime comes along. Even after the mind swapping threat appears to centralize the story, this more casual energy remains for a while. This is, in fact, the pace and tone I've always wanted from a Spider-Man movie. Aside from the thrill of seeing, say, Tombstone on-screen, a Spidey who is always swinging in and out of other adventures works great for me. 

Of course, this is not meant to last for the entire runtime. Each of the MCU Spider-Man movies have been reluctant to let the character stand alone, bringing Iron Man, Nick Fury, or Doctor Strange into the plot. You would think that, of all of Marvel's characters, literally their most popular would be able to stand alone. Whether this is a result of the Byzantine contractual obligations between Disney and Sony that make these movies possible or simply a desire to establish this Spidey as thoroughly part of the cinematic universe, that trend continues in “Brand New Day.” The Punisher appears early in the run time and reoccurs throughout. Dr. Bruce Banner gets a conversation with Peter before his green, angry alter ego is spotlighted in a later action sequence. The mysterious antagonist of the film turns out to be exactly who everyone has speculated they would be, another very well-known  Marvel character re-debuting on-screen. The superhero supporting cast is so prominent throughout “Brand New Day” that it might as well have been called “Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends” or “Marvel Team-Up Featuring Spider-Man.”

The stated goal of wanting to be a lower stakes story simply about the web-slinger, his civilian buddies and love interest, obviously conflicts with high-profile characters showing up. It also creates another tiring feeling, of sitting through a big budget superhero flick that is merely an extended preview of another big budget superhero flick that Marvel Studios' brain trust is presumably hard at work on. Can we not just enjoy a story by itself? Must every tights-wearing motion picture be a part of a massive web of crossovers and brand synergy? Ya know, Peter Parker swinging over to a college campus and getting some advice from Dr. Banner is one thing. That would be a fairly standard event in the pages of the comics. However, here this scene merely proceeds a showdown with the Hulk later on. Devoting the primary villain role to another hotly anticipated character is a more questionable decision, tying Spider-Man to a character he's not that associated with and promising more adventures – more corporate product we must consume – down the line. 

Of all the guest stars, the Punisher is one that gives me the most pause. The blood thirsty vigilante first appeared as a Spider-Man adversary, of course. I've not read every appearance the two characters have made together. I'm sure, at one point or another, they interacted in a more cooperative manner. However, it still feels a little weird to have Spider-Man bantering with a character that has been acknowledged in-universe to be essentially a mass murderer. Jon Bernthal and Tom Holland have some decently amusing chemistry. The contrast between the younger hero's irrelevant style and Frank Castle's gruffness is worth a laugh or two but, by the end, we are meant to have genuinely warm feelings about their relationship. Which feels like a kind of weird thing to do with such a hard-boiled character. The script never quite acknowledges that the Friendly Neighborhood hero is being all buddy-buddy with a brutal killer throughout, one presumably wanted in connection with hundreds of homicides. Perhaps I am simply too much of a nerd to overlook the disconnect here and the average theater-goer will be less bothered by this. 

That “Brand New Day” is so preoccupied with slightly distracting crossovers is all the more frustrating as the premise has an intriguing question behind it. Peter Parker has always been pulled between the duty he feels as a superhero and his devotion to his friends and family. In this film, he's essentially chosen his crime fighting over his love life, in an attempt to keep them safe from the consequences of being connected to Spider-Man. All he can do is watch from afar as his best friend and the girl he loves both easily move on without him. This addresses an anxiety perhaps all of us have felt: How vital are we to other people's lives? If we disappeared suddenly, would the people so important to us find us equally important to them? The push-and-pull between wanting those we love to be happy and move on and what value this assigns to our own existence strikes me as an extremely Spider-Man-like emotion to explore. 

This idea takes center stage in the film's middle section, when the focus turns to Peter and MJ's relationship. Tom Holland and Zendaya continue to have strong chemistry, making these moments even more compelling. The script, at first, seems like its sticking to its guns and isn't going to magically undo past events. The blank slate is indeed blank. Obviously, this is the emotional backbone of the entire movie. Frustratingly, that relationship is entirely sidelined during the actual climax, which basically removes MJ from the story all together. Instead, the script repeatedly focuses in on a much less compelling idea, asking Peter if he truly has to do this all by himself. This moves towards a more generalized struggle against grief and finding the strength to go on after such a loss. This is a much less interesting idea, that never quite squares with the story actually being told here and ultimately feels like a somewhat desperate attempt to connect Peter's story with that of the antagonist's. 

Another common enough Spider-Man trope is Parker's personal anxieties effecting his ability to fight crime. “Brand New Days” draws a little from storylines in which his spider side mutates further, this time as a manifestation over his fears of losing MJ for good. The sequel stops short of having Peter sprout extra arms or turn into a full-on human/spider hybrid. Instead, he merely wakes up in his own webs at one point and develops fully black sclera. This is disappointing in its own right, as it feels like this subplot never quite pays off. Further more, the way this is ultimately resolved really (excuse the pun) bug me. Spider-Man continues to struggle with a fear that he's losing control of his own abilities up until a pivotal moment where... He closes his eyes, thinks about it real hard, and seizes control. At which point, he suddenly has access to a whole new plethora of superpowers that give him the boost needed in a big fight scene. This, to me, feels like video game logic infecting Hollywood screenwriting. Peter Parker levels up, simply by progressing through events, and can now control that which he previously couldn't. It does not feel earned, like a proper pay-off to the hero's development, and simply has him being able to do these now because it's that time in the story. 

Writing like this, distressingly becoming more common in big budget cinema of late, undersells the idea that the story's deeper themes mean anything. How can we accept “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” as an actual reflection on grappling with loss, trying to stone-wall our personal pain, or anxieties that our loved ones will be fine without us if it all wraps up with some shonen fighting anime style power-up? That points towards a problem all blockbuster cinema has, in our increasingly corporate age. The last third of “Brand New Day” sees all of New York City rallying around their local hero, cheering for him to make a brave recovery. There's a lengthy montage of the character's distinctive red and blue web pattern appearing in all sorts of public contexts. At this point, the question becomes if the sequel isn't much more than a self-indulgent act of corporate self-promotion. Look upon this hyper-valuble I.P., mere mortal movie goers, and think about how much you love Product. Is the film's script built upon the nostalgic, emotional connection the audience has to the “brand” itself and not to the story its telling? 

It's entirely possible I'm overthinking this. That I've gotten too old and cranky to simply embrace a special effects driven spectacle for its own sake. Maybe my brain is too full of worries about corporate waste as the world faces down threats much more important than costumed villains. Popular films are ostensibly a reflection of the world they are made in. There are hints throughout “Brand New Day” of how fucked-up shit has gotten in America. A scene where a character is abducted off the street by black-clad government agents, shoved into a van, and un-person-ed in broad daylight is a (possibly questionable) reflection of ICE raids and anti-fascist protesters getting dragged off. The story bends towards an easily guessed twist, that the agencies we have designated with protecting us might be more interested in consolidating their own power instead. Of course, these ideas are never seriously confronted. As in past Marvel movies, the abuses of power by the government are dismissed as the acts of bad apples. Spider-Man stops the bad guy and they get arrested by the cops. He doesn't dismantle the architecture of systematic repression and control. Such short-falls are to be expected but it represents the film's unwillingness to actually make us care, to invest its world with the proper amount of reality. 

Which points towards another problem I have with “Brand New Day,” one that necessitates I enter Extremely Obvious Spoilers territory to address: Why is Jean Grey the bad guy in a Spider-Man movie? From the minute up-and-coming redhead actress Sadie Sink was cast in an undisclosed part, fans assumed she was playing the future X-Woman. The script reveals this is the case about half-way through, as if the filmmakers are admitting how obvious this would-be twist must be. While Miss Grey has been possessed by genocidal cosmic consciousnesses from time to time, she's not typically a villain. A viewer with a basic measure of comic book knowledge can anticipate that she's acting this way for a good reason. While the origins we're familiar with have been rearranged, it still presents an underwhelming reveal about what is really going on.

Sink is fine in the role. Her big blue eyes can convey a degree of pain and emotion that suits what her character is going through. I'm sure she'll do fine in the surely forthcoming “X-Men” movie Disney is working on right now. Occasionally, “Brand New Day” utilizes its telepathic villain for some exciting sequence. People rag-dolling for a second as another mind takes over their bodies is inconsistently portrayed, usually being used as visual shorthand to show us who is under Grey's control at that moment. (Which does remove some of what is supposed to make her powers frightening, the idea that this threat can be anyone at any moment.) However, the sequence where Peter has to outrun the body-hopping possessive entity across the streets of New York is well-done. It's certainly better than the CGI infused finale, that turns this into a city-wide threat with lots of explosive special effects also depended on the idea of a character suddenly gaining control over new powers. Again, I'm just left wondering why these events are being focused on over elements of the story that obviously mean a lot more to these characters and everything that came before. 

The answer to that question is obvious: Because it's a Marvel movie. Getting a soratonin spike out of the audience simply by putting a familiar name or face on-screen is what these films have increasingly been designed to do. It's frustrating because, occasionally, “Brand New Day” does prove to be compelling blockbuster film making in its own right. A highlight of Cretton's “Shang-Chi” were action scenes that balanced acrobatic martial arts with the expected CGI spectacle more often. There's some of that in Cretton's “Spider-Man” as well. Not only when Peter is swinging through the city or tossing webbing around to capture opponents. During several clever spots, the point-of-view itself inverts and swings around the action, truly putting the viewer in the center of this thrill ride. When battling a group of acrobatic ninjas or a free-fall struggle with the Hulk, I was able to get caught up in this. If I'm being especially generous, “Brand New Day” is better than most comic book adaptations of putting the visual dynamism of the four-color medium in motion on the big screen. If I'm being more honest with myself, these moments represents brief surprises in-between a lot of far less memorable lighting, blocking, and cinematography. 

And that brings me back around to the question of Destin Daniel Cretton's authorial fingerprint. I'm sad to say that you don't see much of his personality coming through the film. Learning how to square away personal trauma and continue on with your life is certainly a present theme in the film, as it was in his “Wonder Man' series as well. However, like I said, that often takes a back seat to the bombast. Cretton's other pet themes, of daddy issues and cultural integration, simply aren't present at all. In fact, aside from some of those “Shang-Chi”-like action scenes, the only move here that strikes me as indicative of Cretton's previous work is a soundtrack that's heavy on indie rock needle drops, especially during plaintive montages. That gave me some “I Am Not a Hipster” flashbacks. Otherwise, it's hard not to conclude that the “Short Term 12” auteur has been thoroughly swallowed up by the blockbuster machine. 

It is, in other words, just another Marvel movie. “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” has its moments, a splash of color or inventive action work that got my heart pumping. The cast remains likable. That opening act really did give me hope that this would be a proper day-in-the-life-of-Spider-Man adventure and not merely a teaser for the next massive crossover to come. Sadly, that's not the case. The mere sight of my childhood comic book collection being brought to life on-screen is not enough to subsist a whole movie anymore. This lack of novelty, the sense that the product itself has become the point and not whatever thoughts or feelings it might invoke, is what has made superhero cinema a lot less interesting to me lately. “Brand New Day” isn't bad. It's fine. Will I ever feel the need to watch it again? That's a question I have a much less certain answer to. Good luck with that "Naruto" movie, Destin. [Grade: C+]

 

RECENT WATCHES: Kraven: The Hunter (2024)

When it comes to the topic of Spider-Man's rogue gallery, I'll admit to being a fan of Kraven the Hunter. Perhaps owing to reading "The Most Dangerous Game" at an impressionable age, a big game hunter that gets bored with people and starts hunting people is a cool idea for an antagonist. Much like the Predator and the other descendents of General Zaroff, Kraven had a code of honor of sorts, often seeking to hunt only prey equal to himself. The character has a long and convoluted history in the comics too, being a founding member of the Sinister Six, dying in the classic "Kraven's Last Hunt," having numerous off-springs and successors, and finally brought back to life. As established as the character might be, the idea of building an entire movie around him seemed foolhardy. I don't care about Kraven's origins that much. I want to see him fight Spider-Man! This did not stop Sony from choosing Kraven as the fourth character to get a spin-off movie in their Spider-Man Adjacent Cinematic Universe. After the fiascos of "Morbius" and "Madame Web," it was hard to anticipate "Kraven: The Hunter" with anything but a seasick sort of morbid curiosity. Surely, how can it be any more misguided than those two? The time has arrived for me to find out. 

The film presents Sergei Kravenoff as the son of Russian crime boss Nikolai Kravenoff. He often protects his meeker brother, Dimitri, who has an uncanny ability to mimic voices. As a teenager, Sergei was nearly killed by a lion on the African savanna. A young woman named Calypso gave him a potion to save his life, which also granted him the strength, agility, and senses of the jungle's animals. Disgusted with his father's business, Sergei uses his powers to hunt and kill mobsters and poachers. After assassinating a mob boss named Chorney in prison, Kraven opens up a power void in the criminal underworld. A would-be leader named Aleksei – with a bizarre genetic condition – seeks to fill that void. The Kravenoff brothers and Calypso are soon drawn into a web of betrayal and revenge. 

The idea of a movie starring Kraven the Hunter and pointedly not featuring Spider-Man remains an odd one, fueled by Sony's corporate greed and hubris. However, director J.D. Chandor – previously of well-regarded films like "All is Lost" and "A Most Violent Year" – at least finds a decent hook for the character. The "Kraven" movie basically has the elevator pitch of "What if Tarzan was also John Wick?" Kraven uses the strength of a lion, the speed of a cheetah, the agility of a monkey, the eyesight of an eagle and his bond with all wild animals to violently rip apart a litany of generic bad guys. Kraven also disregards guns as an unfair advantage, utilizing crossbows, all sorts of bladed instruments, and even his own teeth to dispatch his opponents. When focused on lengthy action scenes, devoted to this hyper-violent antihero slashing through an army of goons, "Kraven: The Hunter" actually becomes mildly entertaining. This peeks during a mid-film sequence where Kraven fills the woods with all sorts of brutal booby traps for his pursuers. This sequence, alongside the repeated references to what an unstoppable bad-ass this guy is supposed to be, brought the mindless action fests of the eighties to mind. There's a lot of "Rambo" in this movie's messy bloodstream, alongside a little James Bond and the aforementioned Wickian/Tarzanian influence. 

Much like those gloriously campy murder-fests, in which musclebound heroes decimate whole armies, "Kraven: The Hunter" is also very, very silly. The film's constant need to remind us that Sergei has animal-like superpowers result in multiple, borderline hilarious scenes of him running on all-fours, scaling buildings with his bare hands, and peering into the distance with "Manimal" eyes. This silly streak climaxes during a sequence where Kraven avoids detection from some bad guys by... Lurking behind them and moving away whenever they turn around. That ridiculous atmosphere is further supported by hammy performances from Russell Crowe, as the Kravenoff's brothers' bad dad, and Alessandro Nivola as the Rhino. Crowe gets to partake in his favorite activity of speaking in a goofy accent and intoning on manhood, honor, and business. Nivola, meanwhile, plays Aleksei as a ruthless but neurotic nerd who is barely managing to contain his homicidal rage. A scene where he shrieks with a raspy groan in frustration is another highlight. 

The script is equal parts convoluted and obvious. Tarot cards, magical herbs, sci-fi gene splicing, and hypnotic powers weave in and out of a loose plot of gangsters doing gangster shit. I still don't know what the hell the Rhino's goal was exactly and Kraven is treated, contradictorily, as both a legendary myth and a well-known public figure. The story between the brothers and their toxic father is leading towards an inevitable and highly predictable betrayal. Any comic fan worth his salt knows that Kraven's brother is shapeshifting villain the Chameleon and the movie belabors that reveal as long as possible. This represent the film's desperate, sweaty need to tease – and subsequently underuse – other elements of its comic book source material. Ariana DeBose is largely wasted as Calypso, another villain in the comics reduced to a generic love interest here. That Aleksei transforms into a CGI rhino monster in the last act is also an inevitable event the film holds off on as long as possible. Further nods to the source material are here. D-lister Spidey villain the Foreigner is also here. Mad scientist Miles Warren/the Jackal is an oft-referenced but off-screen presence. A link to Spider-Man appears in an especially contrived manner. Mere minutes before the end, Kraven dons his trademark lion face vest, the movie going out on the thought that merely pointing at stuff from the source material is the same as featuring it. 

What of Kraven himself though? Does the film manage to turn a Spider-Man villain into a compelling hero in his own right? Not really! "Kraven" represents the latest attempt by Hollywood to turn Aaron Taylor Johnson into a bankable star. (Not to mention his third superhero role.) Once again, Johnson's generic good looks cover up an unlikable, high school jock-like confidence. This is displayed multiple times, during a number of ill-conceived comedic scenes. Honestly, Johnson is alright as a one-man army, a Jason Voorhees type slashing through his enemies. As a figure of macho toughness and lady-charming charisma, he falls totally flat. This guy just doesn't have that skill set in his toolbox. He's also so roided out that he walks like a baby with a full diaper, lacking the kind of action hero physicality absolutely essential for a role like this. In other words, Johnson might have made a decent villain but, as a ruthless hero whose code of honor is endlessly emphasized, he doesn't work. 

My main thought coming away from "Kraven: The Hunter" is that... If this has been made in 1989 for a fraction of the money and starred someone like Van Damme or Dolph Lundgren, I probably would've liked it a lot. It has that mean spirited violence and that gleeful sense of dumbness. Instead, the film is held back by a wooden leading man and a mishmash of attempts to make this a superhero blockbuster, part of a loose shared universe, but also a reluctance to fully embrace that comic book setting. The result is a mildly entertaining action flick that simply never comes together, either too silly or not silly enough. This film's box office underperformance has supposedly scuttled Sony's plans for a Spider-Man-free Spider-Man Cinematic Universe, a terrible idea that never should have gotten to the point of six movies... Unless they change their mind and reboot it all. So it goes. [6/10]

RECENT WATCHES: Venom: The Last Dance (2024)

I know I say this every time the topic comes up but it truly bears repeating: Sony's decision to build a cinematic universe around their half of the Spider-Man character rights – which excludes the use of Spider-Man himself – has got to be one of the most legendarily bad ideas that Hollywood has spawned in the last decade. This extremely executive-brained premise has, for the most part, gone exactly how you'd expect. It turns out, the world was not clamoring for movies starring the vampire that fights Spider-Man sometimes and the origin story of the co-worker of his uncle. However, there has been one major exception to this on-its-face awful idea for a franchise. The "Venom" movies were successful. Some have tried to argue that they were good too. The relative box office popularity of "Venom" and "Venom: Let There Be Carnage" continued to fuel Sony's delusional thought that Spider-Man Movies Without Spider-Man In Them were a smart investment. Tom Hardy's apparent enthusiasm for the character has also kept this series moving forward. Nothing lasts forever though. The unlikeliness of Spider-Man's ooziest archenemy fueling one movie, much less two, surely dawned on someone. Thus, the choice was made to cap this series as a trilogy last October. "Venom: The Last Dance" announced its finality in that subtitle, in so much as any of these superhero universes are allowed to end. 

Following the events of "Let There Be Carnage" – which, I'll admit, I remember very little about – Eddie Broke and his symbiote buddy are fugitives wanted by the law. A top secret government task force, based in the secret-ier lab underneath Area 51, are on their trail. Hard-ass military professional Rex Strickland only wants to eliminate the symbiote threat while Dr. Teddy Paine hopes to study them, including the several specimens already in captivity in the lab. That's not the only thing after Eddie and Venom though. The primordial darkness God and creator of the Symbiotes known as Knull is imprisoned on the alien's home world. He seems a special codex that Venom carries, which can set him free. The only way to destroy the codex is for Venom or his host to die. Knull sends a horde of monsters known as Xenophages after the duo, who now have multiple forces after them as they attempt to make it to New York City. 

This we mustn't forget: The "Venom" movies have always been bad. Perhaps that's an overstatement but the previous two entries had deeply uninteresting screenplays, awkward action scenes, usually underwritten supporting characters, and weak villains. "The Last Dance" sees series screenwriter/nepo baby Kelly Marcel promoted to the director's chair. What this largely means is that the esteemed adapter of "Fifty Shades of Grey" and "Saving Mr. Banks" can clearly be seen taking full control of the "Venom" universe. While being a half-assed version of the popular "King in Black" story arc, "The Last Dance" has a plot mostly made up of stupid bullshit. Dr. Paine's backstory is dumped on us via an awkward flashback/dream sequence. The plot introduces multiple elements with grave importance – a role for the comic character Toxin, Eddie taking a life, an omniscient secret observer watching everything – before forgetting about them a few scenes later. That the thrust of the story is based around some universe threatening MacGuffin, one of the hoariest clichés of would-be blockbusters, is a good example of its creative bankruptcy. It has a villain who sits around in a chair in space, imprisoned but massively powerful, who does nothing but brood ominously. Absurd plot devices, such as a big tank of sulfuric acid, are gratuitously introduced with as much prominence as possible, to make clear that they will be important later. Venom makes it clear that he can't fully transform without alerting the Xenophages before doing it anyway. An utter head-scratcher of a scene has the slimy alien monster appearing to save Brock in a way I don't think is possible. In other words, "Venom: The Last Dance" has a cobbled together story that is beholden to hacky clichés, tiresome foreshadowing, and generally can't be bother to respect the audience's intelligence. 

Kelly Marcel's parents are the director of "Hawk the Slayer" and the star of a long-running BBC drama. She's also good friends with Tom Hardy, explaining her involvement with this series. What she definitely isn't is a competent action director. "The Last Dance" is shockingly visually incoherent at times. Action scenes often become hard to follow thanks to the choppy editing. A shot of Venom kicking a slot machine – which looked fine in the trailer! – is rendered awkward thanks to the spasmodic editing. This is, perhaps, the fault. of editor Mark Sanger. His previous credits include some bad James Bond movies, some bad Tim Burton movies, a bad Transformers movie, and inexplicably two of Alfonso Cuaron's best works. This is paired with often murky cinematographers from Fabian Wagner, who has mostly worked on television. Film is a collaborative medium and something looking like shit is result of many hands. However, Marcel still probably deserves blame for the film's utterly goofy conceptions of what a cool action scene is. We've got soldiers dangling from a helicopter for some reason, a hard-to-follow scuffle in a raging river, an improbable battle atop a passenger jet, and the less-than-serious sight of Venom cruising around on a motorcycle. It's all shows a deeply miscalculated understanding of what is cinematic and what looks striking. Unsurprisingly, "Venom: The Last Dance's" climax is a flurry of CGI slime monsters and explosions, the kind of rapid fire action filmmaking that leaves the viewer utterly numb. 

Some may take me eviscerating "Venom 3" for having a garbage story and shitty visuals as a surefire sign that I am a stuck-up, humorless dweeb. Which probably isn't wrong. However, let the record show that, there are several stretches where "The Last Dance" tricked me into believing it was a good time at the movies. As with the previous two entries, this is entirely thanks to two factors: Tom Hardy's compellingly weird leading man energy and the willingness to play Eddie Brock and Venom's relationship for goofy laughs. Broke spends the first act of the film drunk and most of the rest of it hungover, surely a decision that was Hardy's idea. The star's commitment to playing this guy as an awkward loser is shown in the repeated humiliations he suffers, from getting peed on, repeatedly thrashed about by his alien friend, and wandering the desert in goofy cowboy boots. Hardy eventually concedes to the expected star charm, putting on a tux and barking orders during the destruction filled climax. However, he still carries the movie upon his broad shoulders for most of the runtime. He certainly has no help from the apathetic supporting cast, which includes a visibly confused Juno Temple and Chiwetel Ejiofor phoning it in harder than he's ever phoned it in before. 

As for Brock and the symbiote's homoerotic brolationship, the scenes focused on that represent "The Last Dance" at its most entertaining. Far from the corrupting influence and single-minded sociopath of the comics, the symbiote's cinematic counterpart is a source of wacky comic relief. He possesses a horse, the moment the sequel most embraces its silly, Saturday morning cartoon feeling. A shouted-along participation in a David Bowie sing-along or an inspired dance number to ABBA, all much to Hardy's annoyance, are scenes of goofy, chaotic fun. These films have, in spite of their weak writing, managed to get the audience attached to Eddie's attachment to Venom. The attempt at playing their bond for pathos is ridiculous... And it almost works, entirely thanks to the investment Hardy has put into imbuing his misfit hero and his oozy boyfriend with humor and eccentricity. The result is an overly sentimental final scene, which is as hokey as it seems. However, on the rare times the sequel puts aside its doofus storytelling and visual incoherence, I did laugh and enjoy myself. A slapstick heavy buddy comedy is hiding within this lumbering, preposterous attempt at a blockbuster. 

Despite the superhero bubble popping so hard in the last year and change that a number of should've-been surefire hits have plummeted, it would seem that audiences remain hooked on Eddie Brock's weirdo bond with a strangely attractive goo monster. "The Last Dance" has continued this series' run of doing so much better at the box office than anticipated. This means surely that two, related events will follow: Despite the sense of finality etched into every frame of "The Last Dance," we'll probably see Venom on movie screens again soon enough. This also means that Sony execs will likely continue to delude themselves into thinking there is a demand for a Spider-Man-free Spider-Man Cinematic Universe. God help us all. Tom Hardy's charisma and an off-kilter sense of humor about itself is ultimately not enough to save "Venom: The Last Dance" from being tedious big budget sludge. [5/10]

OSCARS 2024: Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (2023)

Five years after “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse's” release, its impact is already clear. Multiple American animated movies have emulated its distinctive visuals. The comic book concepts of a multi-verse became even more popular since then. And it further cemented Spider-Man's place as the most popular superhero of all time. Naturally, because comic book stories never end, a sequel was planned right from the beginning. Yet there was a slight problem. Part of why “Into the Spider-Verse” became such an unexpected commercial and critical success was that nobody expected it to be good. Just look at the other components of Sony's on-going disastrous attempt to spin the bits and pieces of the “Spider-Man” rights they own into a successful franchise for an example of how low expectations were. A sequel, “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” actually had an uphill battle of its own, because people really liked the first one. Well, I guess they pulled it off again, as the sequel has been well received in its own right. Months after the hype has died down, why do I think now?

Following the events of “Into the Spider-Verse,” Miles Morales and Gwen Stacy have continued to operate as the respective Spider-People of their universes. That's when an incursion by another universe's Vulture draws Gwen into an inter-dimensional league of other Spider-People who police the multi-verse. She goes to visit Miles, around the time he's challenged by a new villain called the Spot and is dealing with some issues with his parents. After the Spot learns how to travel to other dimensions, Miles follows Gwen into another world. This delves Miles into a multi-versal adventure, where he meets a collection of new Spider-Men – some have his best interest at heart, others have plans of their own for him – and he'll learn a lot more about himself. 

The animation style of “Into the Spider-Verse” was what signaled to many people that the movie was more than just a quickie cash-in project. “Across the Spider-Verse” clearly sets out to top the original by having an even more explosive visual sense. Time is spent developing the look for each dimension, Gwen's world being characterized by water color like palette. Or Spider-Punk always being surrounded by zine style cut-out art. When the Vulture – from the Marvel 1602 world, it seems – appears, it's as hand-drawn blueprints. The film doubles down on the comic inspiration of the first one, with even more world balloons, thought bubbles, and sound effects appearing on-screen. In truth, “Across the Spider-Verse's” hyperactive visuals are so frantic and constant at times, it borders on the overwhelming. This might be one of the few films I've seen that felt more coherent at home than on the big screen. Nevertheless, it is a hell of a spectacle. 

This visual playfulness peaks during a sequence in the middle of the movie, where Miles is chased through the Society headquarters by a whole horde of Spider-People. This includes such colorful sights as Spider-Cat, Spider-Rex, and a cowboy Spider-Man. It's a lot of fun. So are cameos from the LEGO Spider-Man universe. Yet, sometimes, “Across the Spider-Verse” piles on the references and in-jokes to the point that they feel stifling. I appreciate the shout-outs to the 1967 “Spider-Man” cartoon. Yet cameos from Andrew Garfield or a desperate connection to the MCU makes the movie feel more like an extension of a massive corporate product than as, ya know, a movie meant to tell a story. This is evident in the appearance from Spider-Man characters that end up barely contributing anything to the story too.

Another weakness in “Across the Spider-Verse” is that the film goes out of its way to tell us what Miles Morales' entire character arc is going to be. Before leaving on his latest adventure, his mother tells him not to allow anyone to tell him he doesn't belong. This completely predicts what happens to him later, Miles establishing his own destiny, his own right to exist against a horde of authority figures that tell him he has no right to be here. This is further set-up by the plot's focus on “Canon Events,” another example of a determined history being laid out for our hero. One that, obviously, he's going to deny. It's all laid on a little thick.

I say he's “going to” because... “Across the Spider-Verse” doesn't actually have an ending. If you follow comic book movie and entertainment news, you were probably aware that this sequel was originally announced as a Part One. That designation was dropped from the title but clearly the structure was not changed in anyway. “Across the Spider-Verse” fills up its run time by expanding on characters' back stories and introducing a horde of new heroes and rivals. This is fine. The movie builds to a climax during Miles' conflict with the other Spider-Men. The film then continues to an extended epilogue, which exists solely to set-up a cliffhanger. Not a particularly compelling one, if I'm being blunt. The truth is “Across the Spider-Verse” ends right when it's starting to feel like it's finally gained momentum. 

The apparent flaws with “Across the Spider-Verse” are all the more frustrating because, when it works, it works really well. The subplot focuses on Gwen and her universe are compelling. The slower scenes devoted to her interactions with Miles are really cute, suggesting a gentle kind of romantic tension between the two. Once again, I find myself feeling like a “Spider-Man” story works best when focusing on the smaller stakes, rather than the universe toppling threats. Yes, “Across the Spider-Verse” is an impressive visual experience, that does a lot of really cool shit, and is a loving homage to the “Spider-Man” franchise's history. However, it's also a fundamentally incomplete film, leaving the viewer ultimately unsatisfied. [7/10]

RECENT WATCHES: Morbius (2022)

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has doubtlessly changed the film world, for good and bad. Its success has caused every major studio in Hollywood to try cinematic universes of their own, most of which have been abject failures. Among the strangest attempts has been Sony desperately trying to build a franchise out of their half of the "Spider-Man" film rights. After many years in Development Hell, "Venom" finally emerged and became a surprise hit. Now the studio is trying the same thing with "Morbius," the "living vampire" that has pestered Spider-Man on-and-off over the decades. While Morbius has occasionally held down his own title, and has nearly appeared in movies before, he's never been anywhere near as popular as Venom. That made the proposition of the character getting his own movie dicey to begin with. That sweatiness only increased when the film was repeatedly delayed by the pandemic. Two years after it was filmed, and after six months of seeing the trailer every time I've gone to the theater, "Morbius" has finally been unleashed on the public. 

Michael Morbius has been afflicted his entire life with a debilitating blood disease, that has left him physically frail and requiring daily transfusions. He has worked to find a cure, becoming a brilliant scientist and inventing synthetic blood in the process. His research is funded by his rich adopted brother Milo, who suffers from the same disease. Yet Michael knows his time is running out. He works on splicing human and vampire bat DNA, making himself the first test subject. The serum reverses his condition... By making him a vampire-like creature with superhuman powers but a horrifying hunger for human blood. He sates himself on synthetic blood, which is quickly loosing its effectiveness, while working on a cure. This is complicated when Milo steals the serum and becomes a living vampire too, embracing his bloodlust and framing Morbius for murder. 

Much like Venom, Morbius started out in the comics antagonizing Spider-Man before his sympathetic backstory turned him into an antihero. (Unlike Venom, it was at least easy to disconnect Morbius' origins from the web slinger.) Nevertheless, Morbius does drink blood — or "plasma," if you're watching the 90s "Spider-Man" cartoon — and kill people. A bloodsucker torn between his unearthly hunger and his lingering humanity has been the foundation for countless vampire stories. "Morbius," disappointingly, half-asses this idea as much as possible. Upon becoming a living vampire, Morbius tears up some mercenaries on a boat. The film makes sure to establish these guys are immoral scumbags before they get munched, with even the cops clarifying their deaths aren't a big deal. While the movie briefly flirts with the idea that Morbius is killing innocents, it quickly establishes that Milo is responsible. The script repeatedly emphasizes the synthetic blood and Morbius' desperation not to take anymore lives. "Morbius" goes out of its way to remind the audience that its title character isn't a bad guy, that he's not a deadly bloodsucker. Such as when he stops a pair of counterfeiters, one of the film's more random digressions. This tendency drains the vampire premise of much of its tension, leaving "Morbius" ironically fangless in the process. 

This is not the film's only mistake. Its CGI special effects leave a lot to be desired. Morbius has vampire spasms, that cause his face to stretch and distort via CGI. By the end, he's developed cartoonishly pointy cheek bones. Milo gets it the worst, his CGI stretchy faces looking even goofier. The film is unusually enamored with Morbius' bat sonar powers, leading to multiple scenes of his ears twitching, his pupils getting weird, and sound waves vibrating around him. The film doesn't do a good job of clarifying Morbius' superpowers in general. He leaps through the air via blurry, misty effects that are never totally explained. His super senses manifest in scenes of goofy slow-motion. A scene where he's swept up on wind currents, before later using them to glide, is given a comical amount of attention. All of this is paired with some questionable visual choices from director Daniel Espinosa. He abuses Zack Snyder style ramping multiple times. The fight scenes eventually degrade into incoherent shaky-cam blurs of CGI mayhem. 

"Venom" had a lot of these same problems too. It managed to overcome those flaws because of an endearingly unhinged performance from its leading man and a wacky sense of humor. But "Morbius" doesn't have Tom Hardy in its corner. Instead, it has insufferable method actor/rock star/would-be cult leader/noted teen girl enthusiast Jared Leto. Leto's self-conscious intensity can occasionally work for films but, in the role of a humanist doctor forced to grapple with animalistic urges, he's hopelessly miscast. The long hair and multiple Jesus poses Leto strikes, when combined with his self-sacrificing personality, only makes Morbius seem like an extension of Leto's self-aggrandizing wannabe messiah act. All the attempts to add humor or humility to Leto's performance are hopelessly awkward. This is especially true when it comes to his relationship with Martine, the love interest played by Adria Arjona. She seems drawn to him for no reason, Leto and Arjona having zero chemistry. Maybe the movie should've cast Matt Smith, who plays Milo, as the hero instead. Smith's performance is campy and over-the-top, even more so when aided by the stretchy CGI effects. But at least he's having fun and showing actual human emotions.

In fact, Smith is probably the highlight of the film. The film tries to play Morbius and Milo's relationship as one of brothers turned against each other. But another angle quickly emerges. The two share intense eye contact in several scenes, their faces uncomfortably close. After both become living vampires, Milo taunts Morbius by begging him to "join him" and "give into his hunger." The villain becomes especially pissed off when he sees the hero kissing a woman. The only women he bites are those that are close to Michael, a form of revenge, as he otherwise preys on men. There's also an emotional "coming out" scene to a father figure. I don't know if this was a deliberate attempt to emulate "Venom's" queer undertones but it definitely doesn't seem like a mistake. This homoerotic subtext, when placed alongside the superhero melodrama, can't help but translate to campy laughs. It's not the only example of the movie being most humorous when it's trying to be serious. Look at the bat assisted special move that concludes the final fight, a scene so ridiculous it almost justifies "Morbius'" entire existence. 

If the film full-throatedly embraced this goofy streak, it probably would've been a decent time killer. Instead, "Morbius" approaches itself with all the grandness of the most portentous Marvel films. When paired with the questionable action scenes, weak effects, and a D.O.A. leading man, you get a superhero flick reeking with desperation. See also: The post-credit scenes that sweatily attempts to link "Morbius" with the MCU, in a manner that audibly confused at least one person in the theater with me last night. I don't even know if I can blame director Espinosa, as the film was obviously subjected to reshoots and studio tinkering. But I'm totally fine with blaming Leto's ego... Ultimately, "Morbius" isn't a fiasco. It's mostly just bland and boring, with only the occasional moment of funny bone-tinkling dumbness to enliven things. In other words: it's exactly what I expected from Sony's hasty attempt to exploit the "Spider-Man" assets they have access to. Better luck on those "Kraven the Hunter" and "Madame Web" movies, guys. [5/10]

OSCARS 2022: Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)

Here's how I can tell that I'm getting old. If you had told kid me that superheroes would be the biggest genre in movies someday, that we'd have an entire Marvel Universe on-screen, I would've lost my mind. Even twelve years ago, I would've doubted that an idea as far out as multiverses would be embraced by mainstream flicks. Yet, here in 2022, I'm officially tired of the multiverse. It was cool when “Into the Spider-Verse” did it. Marvel's “Loki” streaming series had some interesting takes on the premise, before “What If...?” ran with it.. But then “Spider-Man: No Way Home” used the multi-verse as an excuse to fold previous “Spider-Man” movies into continuity with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Marvel is taking the idea even further with the next “Dr. Strange” and WB/DC is going to do something similar with “The Flash.” I may be burned out on multi-verse shenanigans but nobody else clearly is. Because “No Way Home” became the biggest movie of 2021 and an immediate fan favorite.

Following the reveal of his civilian identity, Peter Parker's life has fallen into chaos. The Department of Damage Control is breathing down his neck. He's being accused of murdering Mysterio, who some people believe is a hero. When even his friends can't get into a decent college because of their association with him, Peter takes desperate action. He asks Doctor Strange to remove the knowledge of his secret identity from the world. The spell goes horribly wrong though, instead drawing five villains from across the multiverse to this version of Earth. Peter must now contend with Doc Ock, the Green Goblin, the Sandman, the Lizard, and Electro. He seeks to heal the bad guys before returning them to their home worlds, which puts him into conflict with Strange. Yet this multiverse shattering adventure brings with it some new allies too...

I enjoyed the last two of Marvel's “Spider-Man” adventures but it was apparent that something was off about their interpretation of the web head. The last movie saw Peter Parker, who is suppose to be a poor kid from Queens, become the heir to a billionaire's fortune. “No Way Home” seems to directly address this concern. A fundamental part of Spider-Man's story is that he can't balance his superhero identity with his life as Peter Parker. “No Way Home” directly address this idea. It also returns to the premise that personal responsibility, loss, and guilt over inaction, is what drives Peter as a hero. The script accomplishes this by putting a clever spin on the expected Uncle Ben origin story. Ultimately, Spider-Man works best as a blue collar character, who struggles to pay his rent and questions if he's doing the right thing. By the end, the sequel has set-up a new status quo directly built upon that idea.

The MCU “Spider-Man” films probably could've gotten this course correction without invoking the multiverse. I was extremely skeptical of bringing back a bunch of villains we'd seen before. Yet, in execution, it works a lot better than expected. First off, it's practical. Now, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is no longer obligated to put their mark on classic characters like Doctor Octopus or the Green Goblin. Secondly, it's fun. Watching great actors like Alfred Molina, Willem DaFoe, or Thomas Hayden Church interact with each other is entertaining. It even allows a chance at redemption for some of the villains, as Jamie Foxx's Electro – who was not handled the best way in “Amazing Spider-Man 2” – is reinvented into a more palatable character. The Green Goblin's ugly Power Rangers style suit is replaced with a purple hood, goggles, and Dafoe's insane grin. Not everyone gets the same amount of screen time. Rhys Ifens' the Lizard is still stuck as an ugly reptilian humanoid and gets the least development of the rogues gallery. Sandman feels like a fifth wheel sometimes. Yet I think it's a choice that ultimately works.

It helps that “No Way Home” doesn't bring these guys back just for fan service. Ultimately, “No Way Home” returning to the past highlights how superhero movies have changed in the last decade. It's soon discovered that more than half of the villains were plucked from their universes seconds before dying. Tom Holland's Peter Parker doesn't think it's right to doom these people, no matter how villainous they are, to death. He seeks to help them, cure them of their afflictions. Superhero movies used to be content to kill off their bad guys but now the needs of cinematic universes means villains get to grow and evolve. Most of Spider-Man's rogue gallery, at least in the movies, are victims of circumstances. Giving them second chances allows them more depth as characters, allowing Molina's Doc Ock to redeem himself or Dafoe's Norman Osborne to struggle with his mental health more. And turning J. Jonah Jameson into Alex Jones might not make sense but I do enjoy seeing J. K. Simmons rip it up some more. 

What is, arguably, an extended act of fan service is bringing back previous versions of Peter Parker as well. The worst guarded secret in Hollywood last year, Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield appear about a third of the way into the film. On one hand, it's nice to see Tobey Maguire, the elder statesmen of Spider-Men, again. Garfield's Spidey is treated as the lovable loser of the lot, acknowledging how unloved his “Spider-Man” franchise was. Garfield also gets a chance to provide his aborted story line with something of a conclusion. More than anything else, it's fun to watch the three actors bounce off each other. Holland, Garfield, and Maguire all have a way with wry dialogue. They all have radically different takes on the character that play off each other nicely. Yet I do wonder how necessary this fan pleasing decision was. When the in-jokes about webbing, subtitles, or internet memes start to fly, “No Way Home” begins to feel self-congratulatory. 

There's lots of things you can complain about when it comes to Marvel's juggernaut-like grip on pop culture. Some people shit on the movies for their dialogue, which often pack in as many snarky one-liners as possible. And, sure, Doctor Strange quipping about how Peter and his friends need to “Scooby-Doo this shit” might be distracting... But it's ultimately the interaction between these characters that keep me coming back to these movies. Tom Holland's Peter Parker is an adorable dork. He has fantastic chemistry with Zendaya's sardonic but sweet M.J. Seeing those two flirt and support each other is so charming. Jason Batalon's Ned and Jon Favreau's Happy Hogan are also consistently amusing. And, sure, not all the dialogue is natural but Benedict Cumberbatch sure knows his way around a sarcastic one-liner. The warm humor of these “Spider-Man” movies, when combined with the great cast, is why I really like them.

Film Twitter is also constantly bitching about Marvel's overreliance on CGI and green screen effects. Yes, this is also extremely distracting at times. Many of the bemoaned shots look quite bad. The decision to replace Sandman with a CGI pile of sand for most of the movie, presumably so Thomas Hayden Church didn't actually have to be on-screen, was misguided. The fight on the bridge between Peter and Doc Ock feels like an overwhelming mess of computer graphics at times. What makes these moments especially frustrating is that some of the visual effects in “No Way Home” are extremely good. The fight between Spider-Man and Doctor Strange in the Mirror Universe is fantastically surreal, images doubling over on themselves in exciting ways. The final fight between the trio of Spider-Men and the villains makes sure to include several iconic poses. This is almost less of an issue with the movie and more of a problem with how Disney treats their effects houses.

Some of my concerns about the multiverse approach to “Spider-Man” making the leap to live action are still represented in “No Way Home.” A part of me wonders why every Spider-Man movie must be a universe-spanning event now. Ya know, a part of me just wants to see him fight Kraven. Or team-up with Black Cat against Hammerhead. Or some shit like that.  Yet “No Way Home” works better than I expected. The winning cast goes a long way. It mostly manages to balance its collection of villains and heroes. There's enough heart inside this massive spinning machine to keep it from feeling like a totally soulless corporate product. I can still enjoy “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” even if I'm beginning to have misgivings about the MCU's effect on the film industry overall. [7/10]

RECENT WATCHES: Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021)

I don't know if anybody – at least not anybody in my circles – expected “Venom” to be commercially successful, much less good. Sony's continued attempts to build a cinematic universe around the spare parts of the “Spider-Man” I.P. they owned always reeked of desperation. How was a “Venom” story that was legally barred from mentioning Peter Parker ever going to be satisfying? And yet, somehow, 2018's “Venom” proved to be both a proper blockbuster but somewhat beloved too. Through sheer force of will, star Tom Hardy's quirky energy managed to make it a way weirder and more endearing project than it had any right to be. The sequel that the mid-credits teaser promised immediately went into production, with no less a talent than Andy Serkis in the director's chair. “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” unfolded on theater screens back in October and, predictably, became a decent sized hit.

Eddie Brock and Venom attempts to balance his profession as a journalist and the alien symbiote's desires to fight crimes and eat brains, all while pining for his ex-wife, Anne. Brock gets a break when incarcerated serial killer Cletus Kasady, who feels a bond with Eddie, agrees to an interview. Venom quickly deduces Kasady's cryptic messages to uncover where the bodies are hidden. The resulting evidence gets Cletus the death penalty. Before he's to be executed, the murderer bites Eddie and ingests some of the symbiote. This results in a new, red-colored symbiote – calling itself Carnage – bursting from Cletus' bloodstream. The empowered serial killer goes on a rampage, seeking to rescue his superpowered girlfriend, and destroy Brock/Venom. It's not long before Anne, and the police detective pursuing Brock, are caught up in this alien rivalry. 

It's pretty obvious that Tom Hardy, who has a story credit here, and the rest of the team making this sequel were aware of what did and didn't work about the first “Venom” movie. Fans really responded to the oddball relationship between Eddie Brock and Venom, which veered between the argumentative and the homoerotic. “Let There Be Carnage” doubles-down on that stuff. The bickering between the alien life form and his human host comprises a good chunk of the movie and is usually amusing. There's even a long digression, in the middle of the movie, where the two break up and Venom destroys Eddie's motorcycle. This subplot climaxes with a deliriously entertaining sequence where Venom goes solo at a Halloween parade before “coming out” while festooned with rainbow glow-sticks. (Which is only the most obvious way the movie plays with the queer subtext of its central relationship.)

While “Let There Be Carnage” gets a lot of laughs from the CGI slime monster's snide remarks and its dysfunctional relationship with Eddie, it doesn't prove to be the best showcase for its villain. The cinematic Carnage is an anemic imitation of his four color counterpart. In the comics,  the utterly depraved Cletus Kasady forms such a close bond with the symbiote, that he uses singular pronouns when referring to himself, unlike Venom's plural pronouns. The movie, meanwhile, explicitly runs with the idea that Kasady and his symbiote are in conflict. The two turn on each other before the end. Woody Harrelson plays the serial killer as a theatrical, vicious man-child that is almost sympathetic. He's been abused his whole life, can still feel love, and fuses with the alien life form mostly as a means-to-an-end. The CGI Carnage symbiote, meanwhile, is a generic rampaging monster with no personality beyond its desire to destroy its “parent.” The result is an antagonist that zips between totally bland and honestly kind of wimpy. 

Despite its weak titular villain, “Let There Be Carnage” probably still ranks as an improvement over its predecessor. While the previous “Venom” had largely mediocre action direction, and eventually degraded into indistinct CGI mayhem, the sequel overall looks a lot better. The final fight between Venom and Carnage is set in a gothic church, a compelling location. The battle between the monsters never gets tedious or hard-to-follow. I'm chalking this up to Andy Serkis having a lot more experience dealing with CGI characters than Rube Fleischer did. None of the pyrotechnics and stunts are especially memorable and some of it borders on the goofy. Like an improvised tornado or a helicopter plucked out of the sky. Yet Serkis is smart enough to cook enough humor into the action to keep things plugging along at a decent pace. 

The star of the show is obviously Tom Hardy and the weirdo chemistry he has with a toothy blob of CGI sludge. As always, Hardy's cranky, edgy, nervous leading man energy is a delight to behold. But I'm happy that Michelle Williams is brought back. She continues to have a compelling back-and-forth with both Hardy and his computer generated pal. Even if she's reduced to a damsel-in-distress before the end. Reid Scott is also amusing as Anne's beleaguered new fiancé, who proves surprisingly useful before the end. Unfortunately, Naomie Harris is completely wasted as Shriek, Carnage's girlfriend with a super-sonic scream. Harris hams it up in a handful of scenes but the character is so thinly defined that she's still not able to make the character memorable.

Much like the previous entry in the series, “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” makes sure to include plenty of sequel hooks. There's a set-up for a probably inevitable crossover while a largely unnecessary subplot seems designed to introduce Toxin for a third film. Man, is Venom going to fight another symbiote for a third time? Couldn't they introduce the Jury or Knull or something as the villain? Anyway, “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” is, much like its predecessor, most entertaining when following the quirky bond between its two lead characters. In a world jam-packed with superhero blockbuster distractions, it can't prove all that memorable on any of its other merits. Yet it's far from bad too. Hey, I wonder how that “Morbius” movie is going to turn out? [7/10]

RECENT WATCHES: Avengers: Endgame (2019)

Until someone else manages to pull off a proper cinematic universe, “Avengers: Endgame” stands as a unique achievement. It is the culmination of eleven years worth of work. It is a three hour epic that calls back, in one way or another, to twenty-one previous movies. This, hypothetically, should be the most niche project possible, something so inside-baseball that it would only appeal to a small fan base of comic book devotees. Instead, “Endgame” became the highest grossing film in cinema history. Marvel somehow managed to get millions of people all over the world invested in this deep nerd shit, creating the most massive of event films on the back of a decade of event films of smaller but still large size.

The Avengers lost. Thanos, using the power of the Infinity Stone, destroyed half of all life in the universe with a snap of his fingers. They hunt him down on a distant planet but find that he's already destroyed the Stones, preventing the heroes from undoing his goal. Five years pass. The remaining Avengers try to hold on the best they can. That is when Ant-Man returns from the Quantum Realm. He explains that time passes differently in the Quantum Realm and that time travel may be possible this way. Tony Stark and Bruce Banner managed to conceive of a plan to go back int time and retrieve the Infinity Stones before Thanos gets his hands on them. Yet this Time Heist is fraught with danger, a most dangerous face from the past returning with the Avengers.

By moving the story ahead after that brief first act, “Endgame” begins its story in the most interesting emotional place for its heroes. The focus is not on revenge, as would usually be the case in a narrative like this. Thanos is dead but his actions cannot be undone. Instead, “Endgame's” story forces its superheroic leads to grapple with guilt. Thor retreats into misery. Cap remains focused on the jobs that still need to be done, though is privately filled with regret. Tony moves on from the costumed vigilante life. This kind of emotion is not typically seen in superhero flicks, where the heroes are usually only delayed or dismayed for a short while before striking back. It is, admittedly, a fairly bold place to begin your mega-budget giant blockbuster.

Much like in “Infinity War,” the Russo brothers and their team of Marvel screenwriters put together another ludicrously convoluted plot that, somehow, never looses the viewer. Once the Time Heist begins, as in the previous “Avengers” film, the audience is asked to follow several groups of heroes on separate adventures across time and space. This premise is complicated even more by the knotty principals of time travel. Once the Nebula from the future gets tossed in with the Nebula from the past, still aligned with Thanos, the plot threatens to spin out of control. A deft management of editing and writing keeps the huge story of “Endgame,” with the myriad of goals it has, balanced and coherent.

“Infinity War” featured easily the most enormous action scenes up to that point in the Marvel franchise. “Endgame” manages to be even more enormous than the previously huge action scenes. The film concludes with a massive war sequence, practically every hero from all twenty-one movies coming together to fight off Thanos' army. A large chunk of the movie's last third is devoted to this sequence, beginning with Avengers HQ being blown to smithereens and concluding with an army dissolving into dust. There's so much going on that it threatens to overwhelm the viewer. Yet by keeping the focus on the individuals, the action tows the line. This climatic orgy of destruction is, of course, only one part of the massive action. The revisit to the first “Avengers'” Battle of New York features its share of explosion and chaos too.

More than anything else, perhaps, “Endgame” is filled with moments designed to make fanboys cheer in utter joy. Some of these are relatively low-key conversations. Like Bruce Banner making peace with the Hulk, bringing the much loved “Professor Hulk” persona to the screen for the first time. (Revealed in a hilarious moment in a dinner.) Or the conversation he has with the Ancient One, convincing her to hand over the Time Stone strictly with the power of logic. If you ever wondered what happened immediately after the end of the first “Avengers,” or who would win in a fight between Hawkeye and Black Widow, the film answers that question too. But most of them are pay-offs on moments the MCU has teased for years: Captain America wielding Mjoliner, finally yelling for the Avengers to assemble, the much anticipated return of everyone lost in the last entry, Pepper Potts donning the Rescue armor, or a final line of dialogue that brings the whole universe full-circle. Let me tell you, when I saw the film in the theater, during the pause between “Avengers” and “assemble,” you could've heard a pin drop.

As much as I obviously enjoy this stuff, the smaller moments in “Endgame” prove to have just as much impact. Tony's interaction with his daughter is adorable, especially his bedtime story or her response to his discovery of time travel. When reunited with Spider-Man, he gives the teen hero the hug he's wanted for years. Scot Lang gets a similarly touching reunion with his now-teenage daughter Cassie. Or Hawkeye's initial trip back in time, nearly meeting again with his own kids. Despite its grim setting, “Endgame” has a lot of comedy. These scenes are also crowd-pleasing. Korg and Miek's surprise reintroduction is among my favorite, as are hilarious reoccurring gags about Cap's ass, his trademark line, or some tacos.

“Endgame” is also all too aware of its status as the cap-off to the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe, or at least its first decade. The film provides cathartic moments of closure to three of its biggest heroes. During a time travel side trip, Tony Stark gets to resolve all the tension he's ever had with his Dad. By far my favorite is Thor getting one more heart-to-heart with his mother, capped with a touching scene where he discovers he's still worthy despite being caught in the throes of his depression. The most extensive of these closures concerns Captain America finally getting the happy ending he's long-deserved. These moments are digressions, truthfully, but welcomed ones. After ten years of build-up, Marvel earned these moments and I don't mind a three hour run time to allow for them.

Some of these stories are brought to more definitive conclusions than others. Though many of the deaths depicted over this two parter were impermanent, some are obviously designed to stick. Tony Stark goes out as gracefully as possible and the film devotes much pomp-and-circumstance to his passing. It's well done, even if the Marvel universe has increasingly ignored Stark's shortcoming. Less satisfying is Black Widow's passing. Though much emotion is invested in the build-up scene, and the aftermath, her exit can't help but feel somewhat blunt. After the mishandling of her character in “Age of Ultron,” it feels like Marvel's most prominent female hero once again got shafted.

There are certainly nitpicks you can make about “Endgame.” This being such a massively popular film, people certainly did. The exact detail of Cap's retirement not making much sense being the main one. But, really, who cares when the emotional pay-off is so hefty? “Endgame” handles most of its conclusions with grace. Even Thanos, far more sinister and mad this time around, gets a moment to reflect on his failures. Many will consider “Endgame” hopelessly excessive, an act of self-congratulation from the biggest studio in the world to the biggest franchise in the world. Yet, for those that have followed these stories and grown attached to these characters, “Endgame” represents about as ideal a send-off as possible. It's big, ridiculous comic book stuff for overgrown kids but, hey, I'm an overgrown kid too. [9/10]