A Geeky Viewpoint

I tried to go into my screening of Venom with an open mind.  Early social media comments and reviews of the film suggested it wasn't a good but it had its moments.  A couple of reviewers I normally agree with have even suggested they liked the film.   My optimism didn't last long once the lights dimmed and the show started.  In the end I left the screening utterly disappointed.  

I liked Tom Hardy's portrayal of Eddie Brock, but I didn't like Eddie Brock as a character.   There were too many inconsistencies in Eddie Brock's "back story" that just didn't add up.  An example of these inconsistencies is demonstrated as new breed of a no holds barred investigative reporter who you'd expect to have a well followed web presence, instead Eddie Brock holds a job with the local media.      It could have been an interesting twist, but it failed to connect.

Michelle Williams and Riz Ahmed are completely wasted in their roles as one dimension and cliché.  It is even questionable why they have a reason(s) to even be in some scenes in the film.   There is one scene were Anne Weyling (Michelle Williams) is simply just pushing buttons in the background.  I don't remember her saying anything, but I guess she might of had a line in that scene.

The editing and tone of this film is all over the place.  In first part of a scene the film is buddy comedy, along the lines of Dumb and Dumber, as Venom and Eddie interact.   The next portion of the scene the films tries to be Stanley Ipkiss from the Mask with its physical comedy.  The scene ends with Tom Hardy playing both Murtah and Riggs from Lethal Weapon.   It is jarring as well as disconcerting as these transitions occur without reason in the middle of scenes.      

I spent some time trying to decide what film Venom reminded me of.   There are some comparisons that others have quickly suggested, The Mummy (2018), Green Lantern (2011), Catwoman (2004) and The Mask (1994); but those don't quite hit the nail on the head as far as I am concerned.    To me the comparison is more along the lines of the Theatrical Release of Daredevil (2003).   

When Daredevil was released by Fox it was meant to launch a gritty Superhero Universe for a number of Marvel Characters.   The final version of the film was cut from 145 minutes in length to 103 minutes by Fox Executives.   The executives from Fox at the time said the material was extraneous and distracted from the films primary story arc. If you were to watch Daredevil on Disc or TV today you would most likely see the Director's Cut which was released in late 2004.  The additional material in the Director's Cut fills in the primary story arc with added detail that provides the audience a better path towards following the story, provides greater character development and improves the action sequences.     It can be argued that if Fox had released the Director's Cut instead of the Theatrical cut when the film was originally released Ben Affleck still might be playing Matt Murdock. 

Tom Hardy is on the record stating that 30 to 40 minutes of Venom was left on the cutting room floor and that added detail would improve the movie.

As of this morning, Wednesday October 3rd, the score on rottentomatoes.com for Venom was 27%.  The first thought that came to mind, why so high?   Honestly that's what popped into my head.

I have heard from people inside the industry that Sony was anticipating the movie to make just under $60 Million Domestically on opening weekend with a total domestic take of $120 to $130 Million. Which until yesterday is below what the box office predictors were suggesting.   The individual I talked with this morning however is worried that with such a negative score, coupled with confirmation of several rumors, the movie will have a hard time attracting non-core audience members to the theater, and that the core audience will only see the film once.

I am not sure if my brain was tuned out but alarm bells should have been going off way back in July when Studio estimates appeared with $60 and $130 million.     

When you look at a movie box office two numbers are important, the Opening Weekend (which is where studios make the most of their money) and multiplier (a movies legs).    A domestic movie opening at $65 Million and ends with a total domestic take of $176 it has a multiplier of 2.7.   That is considered a good Multiplier, not great, but close.   A movie that opens at $65 million and ends at $181 has a multiplier of 2.8 is almost great as 3.0 is consider great.   

A domestic box office of $60 million and a total domestic take of $120 Million has a multiplier of 2 and would be considered abysmal or bad.   The first two movies are Captain America: The First Avenger and Thor both of which opened with roughly a $65 million opening and multiplier of 2.7 to 2.8.  

For Marvel Films, not just films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but all Marvel films on Punisher Warzone ($4 M / $8 M), Elektra ($12 / $24) and Fantastic Four (2015) ($25 / $56) have the kind of multiplier we are seeing predicted by Sony.     Most Marvel films are in the 2.6 to 2.8 range.

What's more of an issue is that this film is being release in a very non-competitive time slot (early October) where it should have little competition for viewers over the next three weekends.  I was asleep at the wheel.

The other challenge for Venom is it's score on rottentomatoes.com, metacrtic, and other aggregate score web-sites.       On rottentomatos.com this morning it has a score of 27%, which means that only 27% of the reviewers scored the movie as a C+ (2.5 out 5 stars) or better.   Metacritic score, currently at 35, is a measure of how well the film scored with critics.   Scores of 81 or better are considered great, 61 to 80 are considered favorable, 41 to 60 mixed, and 20 to 40 unfavorable and below 20 just plan bad.   The people I talked to suggested that Sony was expecting a rottentomates.com score in the neighborhood of 55 to 60 and metacritic score in the 50 to 60 range.   Neither score is looking like it is possible today.

Where do studios get their estimates, test screenings.   You show the film to 300 random viewers and gauge their results.   In recent years Movie Studio test screening scores and Critical Reviews have become more aligned or in tune to one another.  Occasionally a movie with high test scores will get poor critical responses, The Mummy, and even more rarely a movie that does poorly with the test audience, School of Rock, will get a solid or good critical reception.   In general these scores now-a-days are fairly well aligned.  Venom scored in the mixed to positive range with test audiences and is now getting lower scores from critics.

During the spring of 2017 executives Universal Studios were cautiously optimistic about The Mummy, a reboot starring Tom Cruise the hoped to launch their Dark Universe.    The movie had done fairly well at test screenings they had an expectation of $50 to $60 million in the opening frame and multiplier of 2.7.     The movie had "momentum" in early May 2017 before a the first box-office web-site lowered their estimate based upon the negative reception of the final trailer.   The movies momentum and hype crashed and the movie project was only projected to take $39 Million in the final estimates, before taking a actual of of only $31 M.

This year the momentum for Venom has been building, even last week movie box-office predictors were seeing high social media numbers and excitement for the film before the breaks were applied right before the launch.  So Venom is not following the exact same path as The Mummy; its path is more aligned with The Amazing Spider-Man, another Sony Marvel film, where the wheels fell off basically as the movie launched.   It was projected to be in the $75 to $85 million range for its opening weekend and slid in at just $62 Million a 20% drop.