Venom Review

venom-poster

Before going into Venom, one must accept the fact that Spider-Man has nothing to do with the character in this portrayal. Now, Venom has been tied to Spider-Man in most media. In almost all the comics, most of the shows, and Spider-Man 3, the Venom symbiote was a parasitic creature that bonded with Peter Parker. Eventually, Peter learned of the symbiote’s dark intentions, and got rid of the symbiote. Eddie Brock, a person who hates Peter, bonded with the symbiote and thus was born one of comic’s greatest dynamics.

So, can Venom work outside of Spider-Man? Most things could work under the right writing team. With a passionate director, a great script, and involved actors, it could work. Venom has none of these things. The script is dumb, most of the characters are lackluster, and the comedy is often atrocious. This film is on the same level of mediocrity as Fantastic Four (2015) and Catwoman, maybe even worst. Again, I believe the film could have worked. Yes, having Spider-Man involved would have been great. But, since that was not the route Sony went, the studio could have worked to deliver a compelling story delving into the interesting link between Brock and Venom. Instead, the film is content with stupidity throughout. Brock jumping into a lobster tank to eat live lobsters? That’s just what one expects from a film based on one of comics’ greatest characters!

The story is somewhat similar at first to previous incarnations. A space probe is en route back to Earth carrying samples of some alien substance, known as symbiotes. Unfortunately, one breaks out, causing the probe to crash. On Earth, that one symbiote escapes, jumping from host to host. Meanwhile, Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy), a reporter, is given an assignment to interview Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), the head of the Life Foundation. Brock has his suspicions that Drake is a crook, but he is under strict orders not to interrogate. Despite that, Brock starts bringing up the lawsuits against Drake, which leads to the interview being terminated and Brock losing his job. Eventually, a renegade symbiote named Venom bonds with Brock, and the adventure begins.

venom eddie

Tom Hardy’s portrayal of Eddie Brock has some charisma to it. A strong scene is when he brought up the lawsuits to Drake. After that though, Brock has to suffer through painfully “comedic” scenes, such as the entire restaurant sequence. “Is this real?” was the thought that came to mind as Brock went around eating people dishes and eventually jumping into the live lobster thank. All this is happening because the Venom symbiote is hungry, but even with that context, it’s still incredibly silly. This is the kind of film where you grab your buddies, jump on the couch with a few root bears, and laugh at how hysterically bad everything is. For some reason, the Venom symbiote actually curses. Guess they talk like that on planet symbiote, huh?

Romance is a staple in many movies, and when handled right, it can be a good thing. Venom starts the romance right. Eddie is engaged to Anne Weying (Michelle Williams), and the two have solid chemistry. But when Eddie is fired, Anne subsequently loses her job as well. (She was affiliated with the Life Foundation.) This leads to her breaking up with him. Fast forward six months later, and she has a new love interest. Despite the time gap, it stills feels incredibly sudden. This romance angle further detracted from the overall movie.

As for Carlton Drake, or as I like to call him, ‘Mr. Exposition,’ he does not have a screen presence. Heath Ledger’s Joker, Josh Brolin’s Thanos – these guys are legendary screen grabbers. Drake comes off as petty, with the script not really delving into his character at all. The writing may think giving him big exposition dialogue makes him a deep character, but it doesn’t. Interestingly, he does have a few lines of dialogue that seem to hint at something really neat, but doesn’t end up being the case because the Riot symbiote bonds with him much later in the film.

Speaking of Riot, he was solid. But, he looks way too much like Venom. The final battle between the two was decently fun, but can be hard to decipher the characters due to how similar they look. As for Venom himself, the scenes with him in his full Venomized form are the most entertaining of the film. The dialogue between Eddie and Venom is interesting. The relationship between the two in the comics is fascinating (I’d recommend reading The Spectacular Spider-Man: The Hunger for a great Venom story), and it’s explored in the film in a fun way. It’s too bad the rest of the film was mediocre. Also, it takes way too long for Venom to appear, even for an origin story.

The soundtrack is solid, with some notable tunes. At this point, I’ve been pretty negative on the film. The comedy usually just isn’t good. This is not a horror film, which is what Sony should have aimed for. Director Ruben Fleischer delivers a film that watches like a bigger budget college video product. Most of the comedy is just lacking. Yes, the Venom/Brock scenes are fun, but that’s about it. The film just comes off a story trying to be “fun,” using the Venom name, without delivering an actual quality story. The plot seems to be on fast forward, with little being explained or delved into. Ironically, Donna Diego (Michelle Lee), was 10x more engaging than Drake in her brief scenes. (She should have been the antagonist.)

Venom vs riot

Simply put, Venom is one of the worst comic books movies in recent years. (The mid-credits scene is better than the whole movie.) If Sony makes a sequel to this despite the critical backlash (the film currently has a 32% on Rotten Tomatoes), the studio needs to overhaul everything. As it stands, Venom is bad. There is some fun to be had, but it’s just a poorly made movie. Venom could work without Spider-Man, but it definitely didn’t work here.

3/10

 

The Fall of Nintendo’s Core Gaming

I’ve been a fan of Nintendo for about 15 years now. I’ve seen the way they they’ve changed their games from era to era, console to console. It’s also interesting to see the things that have not changed. The company is still the king of unique first party titles. They deliver bright, colorful, fantastical stories and worlds.  When one thinks of Nintendo they think of mushrooms, princesses, stars and things related. In the distant past they’ve bordered on only having games for core gamers (the ones who go down to Gamestop and invest hours into each game) and also for the whole family such as Mario Party. The company kept a balance, but they didn’t forget that they were a video game company first and foremost in making quality single player (and multiplayer) experiences. What’s the purpose of  a video game? Generally speaking, I believe the purpose is to challenge the player to complete some sort of quest. On another note, there’s also party games, racing games, fighting games and sport games, all of which the major companies have.

But the core thing is to generally challenge the player, young or old, and to throw them in an unknown world. The goal is to complete the adventure, whether it be saving the world, rescuing the princess, or becoming the world champion. Nintendo has delivered these things in different formats very well over the years. Of course as you probably noticed I used the term “distant past” to describe Nintendo’s practices. That’s because I believe the company has truly fallen short these past years.

Recently it was announced that the upcoming STAR FOX ZERO would be including a mode called “Invincibility.” Basically, it will make the Arwing invulnerable, granting players the ability to fast-blast the level. I couldn’t help but laugh and shake my head at this. Let’s think about it for a second: the game is literally giving you a cheat code. It’s telling the player that if this is too hard for you, here, take a pass. You might tell me that just because it’s there doesn’t mean I, or anyone else, have to use it. True. The thing is that it shouldn’t be there at all. A kid playing is given an option to defeat the level without overcoming anything. This defeats the purpose of a challenge to be overcome. The fact that it’s there encourages the easy way out when something seems too hard.

Star Fox Zero Release Date Announced

Let’s say you’re faced with an exam. It’s truly tough and you’re having a hard time completing it. Instead of the student learning to study harder, the teacher decides to give you the answers, guaranteeing a pass. Does this ever happen? Should it happen? Of course not. Things like “Invincible Mode” encourages no hard work. Back in the day you had games like Yoshi’s Island and Mario Sunshine. These games didn’t have invincibility modes. The players, whether they be kid or adult, had to learn to overcome each stage every time they got stuck. There was no “holding the player’s hand.”

If Zero was the only game with this type of mode I wouldn’t have too much of a problem. The thing is that this has been a practice of Nintendo for years now and has become a staple for the company. In New Super Mario Bros. Wii (7 years ago) after losing eight lives the game offers the player a “Super Guide.” Basically if they use it the game shows the player how to beat the obstacle. Instead of the player using their head, the game offers a cheat. Super Mario Galaxy 2, one of the finest platformers ever made, sadly utilizes this concept and takes it a step further. If the player chooses to gain the help of a “Cosmic Spirit,” it will literally possess Mario and propel him to the end on auto-pilot. In Yoshi’s Woolly World the game constantly reminds you that you have “badges” to help make the already easy game, easier. You wouldn’t find this stuff on the Gamecube.

This isn’t only limited to Mario games. In SONIC LOST WORLD for Wii U and 3DS it allows the player to skip segments after losing a number of times. You’ll pretty much never find this on any Playstaion or Xbox game. Of course, the actual Nintendo games are usually of quality despite having that Super Guide option. Even then, those quality games are becoming rarer since the company has put their attention elsewhere. Where did this begin? With the Wii.

vg.consoles.01.lg

The Wii was revolutionary for introducing motion control to the world of gaming. While on the onset it was a brilliant idea, it would be the start of Nintendo’s downfall. Why? Because with motion control Nintendo started to shift away from core gameplay experiences to things like Wii Fit. Now there’s nothing wrong with having a game like the Fit, (it does have great benefits) but the problem is that starting there is when the company began to be known not by its games, but by its gimmicks. This isn’t the main negative aspect however. The really awful aspect starting with the Wii is that Nintendo had become known for being squarely aimed at non-gamer children. Remember the game Transformers: War for Cybetron? It was ported to the Wii under the title “Cybertron Adventures,” a severely watered-down version. The Wii also featured the largest amount of shovelware and Z rank games to date. You wouldn’t find low budget entries like those on the PS3 or Xbox 360. Things like these alienated gamers from Nintendo. (Why should a Wii owner get a lesser version of the same game?) The company still hasn’t quite recovered from the Wii era.

Nintendo also seems to really dislike the internet and competitive scene. Leaderboards and player rankings have been virtually nonexistent. One would imagine with its latest console, the Wii U and its biggest fighting game to date, Super Smash Bros., they would implement a leaderboard system like how Capcom is doing it with Street Fighter V. But we didn’t get that. (At least Pokken features a ranking system, though not in-depth.) The servers are almost seamless on all PS4 and Xbox One games. The peer-to-peer system of Smash can often be full of lag, making some battles online almost unplayable. What could be worst however is how the company interacts with its fanbase, which is basically nonexistent. Their secretive policies in Mario Maker for example shows that they have no idea how to communicate with their own fans.

Nintendo is so out of the loop with how to market products that many people still don’t know that the Wii U is completely separate from the Wii. I was talking to someone not too long ago and when I inquired about the U he thought it was just another version of the Wii. The U is one of Nintendo’s worst selling consoles to date for this very reason. While it has stepped away from some of the failures of the Wii, it hasn’t reached the greatness of the Gamecube and its predecessors in delivering consistent, quality content. A running joke which is still going is a lack of third party support. Ubisoft have said in the past they wouldn’t release more exclusives until the system sold more units. Sadly, Nintendo has thrown itself into a hole which could take quite awhile to get out of. The sad thing is that they don’t seem to care!

The Wii U has been out for just four years and Nintendo is already prepping release for their next home console. This is their not so subtle way of saying the U was a failure. The company is so set on Miis and Ambiibo gimmicks that they’ve forgotten what gamers want to play. A prime example of this is the upcoming 3DS Metroid game, Federation Force. Instead of giving us the next Samus Aran installment after 6 years, we’re getting  a 4 player co-op where she isn’t even a focus! (The first trailer received over 25,000 dislikes on YouTube day one.) The company doesn’t seem to understand that this is not something a fan wants to invest hours into.

From the NES to the Gamecube, the company was in its prime. Since the Wii the company has moved away from its earlier practices. The Wii alienated many people a couple of years in as it started to focus on other areas than delivering quality gameplay. That’s not to say every game was bad, because the console houses some truly fine additions. There’s more mediocre than positive however. The continuing usage of a “Super Guide” and “Invincibility Mode” shows that Nintendo isn’t in the same mindset as the Yoshi’s Island days. The Wii U doesn’t look to pick up as already the NX is being released in the near future. Nintendo was once a company which delivered consistent, fantastic games which made the player smile and challenge them to overcome obstacles. Now I’m inclined to say their competitors are better at being video game companies. The sales showcase this too, for Nintendo has been in decline since the Wii U has failed to sell as much as the PS4 and Xbox One. (To put this in perspective, it took the U 3 years to sell 10 million units, while the PS4 and Xbox One only 1 year!)

Wii-U-LogoI don’t think Nintendo is going to regain the respect of gamers anytime soon. Maybe the NX will change things. (That’s the hope anyway.) If the company can start delivering quality content consistently from the start and slowly move away from its Mii, family party-centered practices it can happen. Again, there’s definitely nothing wrong with having gimmick or party-like games. Families should be playing together. The company however should put their focus in making challenging installments for the main buyers of a video game console, the gamers.