Venom ’s Collapse is Complete - Review embargo lifted

It will still beat a star is born.

It will do well opening weekend but die with word of mouth.

Sounds like it will be the Razzie front runner.

GaGa tried to warn you.

Nobody asked for this movie. I thought they’re going to build up to a November release, create anticipation. Imagine my surprise to learn they’re already dumping this in theaters this Thursday!

If you replaced Tom Hardy for Steve Martin in "All of Me," and switched out Lily Tomlin for a wad of chewed-up black licorice, you'd have "Venom."

Can I play a spider? A fly? A gnat? Anything...

Is Top Her Grace in this?

Such a shame. I was looking forward to this movie.

I couldn’t even finish the trailer because it looked so damn boring.

Good, now maybe Hardy can fuck off back to obscurity where he belongs. Sucking cock will only get you so far, and now he's a fat, bloated, greasy looking hasbeen with no talent. He has nothing to offer. Next.

The trailer was so shitty. I love Tom Hardy and will give it a try.

I mean I guess I'll watch it if I have to but it's not really something I'm looking forward to.

Salt on the wound - LA Times notes that Hardy’s twin Logan Marshall Green starred in Upgrade this year, and that is the movie Venom should have been

[quote]Nobody asked for this movie. I thought they’re going to build up to a November release, create anticipation. Imagine my surprise to learn they’re already dumping this in theaters this Thursday!

ABSOLUTELY nobody. I mean...why THE fuck would you make a Venom movie without the character responsible for its existence in the MU? For that matter, a Joker WITHOUT Batman? I don't get how anyone thought this was a good idea. I mean...i'll watch it on my Ps4 which is where it should've been released.

Well if it kills off Sonys future plans that's at least one less cinematic universe friends will want to drag me to.

R15, no one is dragging you to anything you don't want to attend if you are an adult. People sound like morons when they say things like this. Is the friendship hinged on attending shitty movies you truly don't want to see? I always tell people no or I will meet them later.

The trailer had bad acting, dialogue and effects, with no Spiderman, so I don't understand the shock regarding it being terrible.

Michelle Williams is in this?? WOW.

the incipit of this review. WOW.

[quote] the sight of a disheveled, stubbly, sweaty and bloated Tom Hardy jolts you with the realization that here is the perfect actor to one day play Harvey Weinstein.

r18 I'd honestly sue for a retraction.

This is Sony's universe so does that mean the Spider-Man for this Venom is Andrew Garfield?

[quote]The trailer had bad acting, dialogue and effects, with no Spiderman, so I don't understand the shock regarding it being terrible.

I don’t think ANYBODY is shocked.

Yeah the trailer made it obvious this would be terrible.

[quote]Michelle Williams is in this?? WOW.

Michelle Williams was also in Dawson's Creek and Halloween H20.

Don't tell that to fanboys, r21. Some of them are so delusional. Or just have no standards. Both.

She was also in Oz The Great and Powerful not long ago. She's not above making a buck.

[quote]This is Sony's universe so does that mean the Spider-Man for this Venom is Andrew Garfield?

No. Tom Holland is.

You couldn't pay me to eatch Dawson's Creek, but it lauched her career from a nobody. I hate when actor shit on or disregard the project that made them.

Launched.

The press tour gor this has been hilarious. You can tell everyone involves hated it.

r20 the way I remember the Sony/Marvel deal working is Holland is technically Sony's But he's on loan to the MCU for the forseable future. Though I think his contract is up for renegotiation after Far From Home. It'll be interesting to see whether the Sony Universe flopping means they try to bring Spider-Man back to them.

Has Michelle Williams done any press? I've only seen interviews with Riz and Tom.

Never mind. She has.

[quote]Don't tell that to fanboys, [R21]. Some of them are so delusional. Or just have no standards. Both.

Actually, I’m kind of a fanboy, so I’m pretty “tapped in”--essentially, I read comic books but you’d never know it-- and I can tell you that they hate EVERYTHING.

That's correct R28. I had to have someone explain it to me like I was a child, honestly. I THINK that maybe Disney and Marvel worked that shit out with the mutants. I can only do surface research on this shit tho.

It’s a comic book super hero movie so it’ll make a gazillion dollars regardless of reviews.

We can’t get enough of this garbage. Being on Venom 2, 3, and 4!

What a shame. I was really waiting for the movie. Unlike some others here I can totally see the concept of Venom working without any mention of Spiderman. Oh well, I'll probably still go see it... or not. I'm still scarred by how absolutely awful The Meg was. Then again there's no way Venom can be worse.

[quote]It’s a comic book super hero movie so it’ll make a gazillion dollars regardless of reviews.

No, it won't. This one is a flop just like Fant4stic.

So this Venom's Spider-Man is Tom Holland?! That seems like a total mismatch.

Sony doesn't really know what they're doing. Word is they slapped this film together so they wouldn't lose the rights to the character. Spider-Man, and the characters in his universe, are essentially their only profitable superhero franchise, which is why they're doing their best to keep it out of Marvel's hands. This is also why Fox made that shitty Fant4stic. They don't care about the craft as much as the MCU does and it shows.

[quote]Spider-Man, and the characters in his universe, are essentially their only profitable superhero franchise

Does Sony even have any other superhero franchises?

I don't think so. Just the Spider-Man characters. Here's an infographic.

I tried to warn them.

I'm going to go see it just so it might keep Star Is Born from being #1

[quote]I mean I guess I'll watch it if I have to but it's not really something I'm looking forward to.

Are we really in a place where we are now obligated to watch comic book movies? I guess we are. 😕

I mean if there's nothing else playing.

R38, that graphic is wrong. Marvel Studios doesn't own the rights to any of the X-Men.

Disney bought Fox.

[quote]Disney‘s $52.4 billion agreement to buy 21st Century Fox‘s entertainment assets is good news for fanboys and fangirls.

[quote]The company was quick to tout that the pact “provides Disney with the opportunity to reunite the X-Men, Fantastic Four, and Deadpool with the Marvel family under one roof and create richer, more complex worlds of inter-related characters and stories that audiences have shown they love.”

Though I hate the character in the comics, I like Tom Hardy so I was thinking of seeing it. But no.

Good. That homophobe gay men love should be out if the spotlight for at least a few years if this completely tanks.

Who?

R44, does that mean the MCU will cast their own Wolverine and X-Men or will the existing ones just now all of a sudden exist inside the MCU?

No one really knows. The OG X-Men cast still has a film coming out next summer. After that who knows what Disney will do with them?

The final merger, and thus the return of the X-Men and FF to Marvel Studios is supposed to take place in February, I believe. There was some speculation that Dark Phoenix might get buried and it seems like the terrible-looking New Mutants almost certainly will be.

There will be outrage if Dark Phoenix is buried. The trailer is already out.

Dark Phoenix won't get buried. It was about to get dumped in February, but the trailer did so well in China that they're giving it a prime Summer release.

They should just drop New Mutants on Netflix or something.

[quote]There will be outrage if Dark Phoenix is buried. The trailer is already out.

Trailer came out for New Mutants as well. They bumped its release a year and a half.

[quote]Dark Phoenix won't get buried. It was about to get dumped in February, but the trailer did so well in China that they're giving it a prime Summer release.

I forgot about that. I guess they've written off the US box office and are focusing on Asia.

From the Sony leaks we learned that Amazing Amy Pascal was desperate to get Tom Hardy signed to play a Marvel villain. First she wanted him for Sandman in the aborted Sinister Six spinoff of Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man universe.

I forgot about that Sinister Six spin-off. They even set it up at the end of the disastrous Amazing Spider-Man 2. Sony just needs to stop.

So is this part of that aborted Sinister Six movie? Tom Hardy is Venom, Paul Giamatti is Rhino, Jamie Foxx is Electro, Felity Jones is Black Cat, Dane Dehane is Green Goblin.

Sony has always struggled with its film division, I wouldn't be surprised if they sold it off soon. It would be a good asset for Netflix or Amazon.

Shinishter Shicksh.

This movie does not take place in the Marvel Cinematic Universe r25. Tom Holland's Spiderman does not exist here.

R11, He was never better than in the 4-part "The Take," also with Brian Cox and Shaun Evans. Very well worth finding.

Such an uninspired plot. Government developed weapon gets out of their control. Wow, I've never heard that one. Glad Marvel finally has experienced a flop

This is not a Marvel Studios film, dumbass.

The trailer makes it looks worse than GotG2 but better than BvsS.

Not marvel studios but obviously a marvel property dumbass

I am so tired of all these superhero movies. And I’ve been all in since Batman (1989). But now I’m done. They wore me out.

Except Ant-man. It’s small and heart-warming. I want more small heart-warming cinema.

Watch Paddington.

[quote]This movie does not take place in the Marvel Cinematic Universe [R25]. Tom Holland's Spiderman does not exist here.

But I thought Sony's Spider-Man is Tom Holland. So he does exist here. Or is Sony's Spider-Man still Andrew Garfield here?

Sony recast Spider-Man when Disney's Marvel Studios wanted to add Spider-Man to the Marvel Universe. The Garfield Spider-Man movies were not meeting financial expectations so that series was ended and Spider-Man was rebooted with future Sony Spider-Man movies to be made in cooperation with Disney.

Michelle Williams said in her HR interview that basically she accepts these kind of films now because she's got a family to feed. At least she was honest. I bet Riz Amed (sp?) is fuming... this was his first big american project, right?

[quote]I bet Riz Amed (sp?) is fuming... this was his first big american project, right?

He did Rogue One like three years ago.

Are you saying Michelle Williams can't feed her kids off the millions she's already made? Her kids won't go hungry if she never worked again.

Why can't the gorgeous Tom Hardy land a solid hit? He's the British Armie Hammer.

[quote][bold]The pervasive lack imagination of this film under the auspices of director Ruben Fleischer, in his first feature outing since the dreadful Gangster Squad in 2013, makes one appreciate the thought and care that Marvel has lavished not only on the likes of Black Panther and Captain America[/bold] but even on more minor-league entries such as the amusing Ant-Man titles. Everything here seems by-the-book, without amusement or surprise, save for Stan Lee's more extensive-than-usual last-minute cameo.

It always amazes me how many chances some of these no talents get in Hollywood. The guy has three films in pre-production.

[quote]Sony recast Spider-Man when Disney's Marvel Studios wanted to add Spider-Man to the Marvel Universe. The Garfield Spider-Man movies were not meeting financial expectations so that series was ended and Spider-Man was rebooted with future Sony Spider-Man movies to be made in cooperation with Disney.

Yes, we all know that. But WHO is the Spider-Man in Sony's Venom? If the current Sony Spider-Man is Tom Holland then Tom Holland is this Venom's Spider-Man.

There is no Spider-Man in the universe that Sony's Venom inhabits.

R69 Williams also said she makes these kinds of films so it'll be easier for filmmakers like her independent director friend Kelly Reichardt to get their projects made. It makes sense to me. It'd be cool if she could attach herself to better blockbusters though.

R72 Also, Hardy's NOTHING like Armie Hammer. Dude's way more interesting and already managed to nab an Oscar nomination. Also, Dunkirk, The Revenant, and Mad Max were all hits.

R74 Sony, I'm sure, made Venom hoping it'd be a hit so that eventually they'd interlace Tom Holland into future films. It got shit reviews though, which could negatively affect its box office and any franchise hopes.

I feel for Holland in all of this because I'm sure he'd rather be associated with MCU quality films and not this Sony drivel. If Venom bombs he'll be fine though. I'm sure Disney will find a way to obtain Spider-Man and his characters wholesale.

[quote]There is no Spider-Man in the universe that Sony's Venom inhabits.

Yes, there is. Venom does not exist without Spider-Man.

R38, poor Namor. And She-Hulk actually. I guess nobody cares about them.

Well read the dozens of reviews for the movie, R77, which all point out that Spider-Man does not exist in the movie's universe.

She-hulk is my favorite marvel character. It's a shame she will never get a movie

Michelle Williams is nearing 40, so it's pretty much her last chance to try to land herself one of these franchises. If it's a hit, it could provide a couple high-profile films for her to work on in her early 40s when work often starts to diminish for actresses. Appearing in hits also sustains an actress' ability to show up on casting lists for smaller projects they're probably more interested in doing.

No, R71: she said it, not me.

I thought Jack Davenport was the British Armie Hammer.

talking about Hammer, i just saw J.Edgar. Jesus Christ, the movie is awful! And Armie plays Di Caprio's lover. It was written by DL fave and hack extraordinaire, Dustin Lance Black.

[quote] It always amazes me how many chances some of these no talents get in Hollywood. The guy has three films in pre-production.

I think the powers that be care most about compliance. This guy probably is really good at doing what he is told. But seriously WTF?

Holland will be fine for a while. Spiderman? Success. Infinity War? Success? Avengers 4? Probably success. Spiderman 2 (Far From Home)? Quite likely success. There. He's set until the 2020s.

And Venom isn't Marvel Studios. MS has its issues occasionally, but has largely been a gigantic powerhouse in cinema. Sony? More often ranging from flops to mixed results (with some successes, but they're far from as successful as the video game division).

R78/R80 on the contrary, I find it encouraging that Universal Pictures are the only ones with the rights to make a She-Hulk movie.

Because if they do? It will be glorious.

Remember: Universal made STREET FIGHTER (the Japanese-American one with JCVD), ARMY OF DARKNESS and DARKMAN all of which still stand as cult classics of dark fighter/vigilante movies. If they made a She-Hulk movie in the vein of those films? I'd probably see it fifteen hundred times.

Wow, I just went to check the Wiki and turns out 90% of my favorite movies as a kid were Universal flicks; mostly because I hated Disney and my Mom didn't like me watching anything that the kids down the street watched so she usually inadvertently picked my VHS tapes up from the Universal section in Blockbuster. They had some damn watchable and cool movies in their catalogue.

I remember looking forward to repeat viewings of WATCHERS (Corey Haim's most underrated movie), HARRY & THE HENDERSONS, SMOKEY & THE BANDIT (and sequels), DRAGONHEART (Dennis Quaid!), THE LAND BEFORE TIME, CASPER (the CGI Christina Ricci everyone shit on unreasonably), GOLD-DIGGERS (more Ricci), BABE, A SIMPLE WISH, Henson classics THE GREAT MUPPET CAPER & THE DARK CRYSTAL, BALTO, AN AMERICAN TAIL (and sequel), THE BORROWERS, TIMECOP, SMALL SOLDIERS, KINDERGARTEN COP, THE NUTTY PROFESSOR & BEETHOVEN (yes, the dog movie).

Then when I got older and chose my own movies, I stayed loyal and wore out the discs of more Universal. Favorites then & now include: SLAP SHOT, KUFFS (sigh, Christian Slater before he used to hit women), SIXTEEN CANDLES, RUMBLE FISH, CONTINENTAL DIVIDE (John Belushi's last movie :(), FRIED GREEN TOMATOES (I'm gay), XANADU (ditto), the original JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR (...do I even need to say it?), THE 'BURBS, PARENTHOOD (Keanu....), 12 MONKEYS, DAZED & CONFUSED, Jean-Claude Van Damme vehicles HARD TARGET (still the coolest movie on Earth) & SUDDEN DEATH, DUNE, DEMON KNIGHT (with DL-fave Billy Zane!), MST3K THE MOVIE, THE MUMMY, & MEET JOE BLACK. In the '80s/90s their only major missteps as a studio were ill-advised adaptations or sequels like THE FLINSTONES & BLUES BROTHERS 2000 (which wasn't even that bad tbh…)

Not that anyone cares if the VCR raised me. Just thought I'd point out that She-Hulk is by no means out for the count all on her own at Universal.

[quote][R78]/[R80] on the contrary, I find it encouraging that Universal Pictures are the only ones with the rights to make a She-Hulk movie.

Marvel holds the Hulk rights again. However, they have a deal where Universal has the right of first refusal for the distribution of any Hulk-related films.

The only reason I would want it to do well is I would love a porn parody--it's the only superhero movie trailer that's ever left me hard, because when Venom immobilizes his enemies and evilly talks about eating their organs and flexes his huge rippling muscles, it seems like what he really wants to do is hatefuck them to death.

Too late for a She-Hulk movie. Chyna died.

Why are Namor and Kingpin in gray? What does that even mean?

Riz and Tom sure are charming as they teach us British slang.

Film adaptations of 90s Marvel comics are disastrous ideas. It's generally agreed that that decade is the creative lowpoint for Marvel Comics, when the dreadful Rob Liefeld was the big creative force, and all the protagonists were murderous antiheroes and either were made of (or exuded) goo, or had ridiculously oversized muscles (even by comics standards) and pocket belts strapped across their thighs and carried enormous futuristic guns.

Tom Hardy just isn't a star no matter what Hollywood PR says.

Tom Hardy always wants to play movie parts where he can cover his face. I don't get it--that's by far his best part.

Pauline Kael famously wrote about her disappointment with Pret a Porter: "Julia Roberts not smiling is like Tom Cruise thinking." We could add, "...and is also like Tom Hardy not showing his lips."

Another Man Baby film bites the dust. Thank God.

Damn! The trailers looked so good.

Hilarious review from Slate with commentary from the author’s “symbiote”

[quote]Why can't the gorgeous Tom Hardy land a solid hit?

Dark Knight Rises?

Mad Max: Fury Road?

Inception?

The Revenant?

Black Hawk Down???

[quote]This is not a Marvel Studios film, dumbass.

The fuck? I mean...really with this?

I’m glad that you find this complicated mess that they’ve created uncomplicated--probably because you ‘ve spent countless hours reading up while jacking off to Tom Holland photos--but people with lives and a passing interest are not as familiar--so your assholery is unnecessary.

In other words, piss-off twat.

Uh, everyone and their grandma knows this is not a MCU movie, just like Deadpool isn't.

[quote]There is no Spider-Man in the universe that Sony's Venom inhabits.

[quote]Yes, there is. Venom does not exist without Spider-Man.

Right R77. HOWEVER, in this film, there is NO Spider-Man--as was discussed earlier in this thread-- which is the main point of contention with the movie. They’re essentially introducing a character based on a very popular character to people who are unfamiliar with that fact.

[quote]Uh, everyone and their grandma knows this is not a MCU movie, just like Deadpool isn't.

Uh, apparently they don't R102. And THAT assumption is why you're a twat.

This looks like a children's movie.

Just because Spider-Man is not in this movie does not mean he doesn’t exist. Do you think Batman doesn’t exist in the new Joker movie?

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away my comic books.

R100, Hardy was not even remotely the lead in any of those movies, even the Mad Max reboot which hinged on Theron and the other women.

The movies where he is the lead in the last five years have tanked with mixed critical receptions.

Vernom?

Venorm?

At the end of the day, Tom Hardy is a very good character actor. But he should stop being pushed as a lead in films. I actually think this film will successfully kill that.

[quote]When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away my comic books.

Not me! I'm a child at heart!

The CGI looks Razz-worthy.

R111, the version of The Illiad that I read (modern re-print, not the one below) also had pictures, so it read like a comic.

The pictures were very suggestive too... 😳

Oh, there are actually "The Illiad" comics!

It'll still be #1 this weekend, but they need to be humbled - they can't keep churning out garbage and expecting to make tons of money.

Nipples and Lips, Tom.

Just keep repeating that.

His chest is gross to look at since it's completely covered with tattoos now.

[Quote] I'm still scarred by how absolutely awful The Meg was.

Were you expecting it to be good?

[quote] Black Hawk Down???

R100 mate, come on now.

Lady Gaga and Bradley are singing all the way to the bank...

How does Ruben FLEISCHER -- an abject, fucking garbage director -- keep getting to direct movies?

Take one guess.

I read the reviews at The Guardian and Telegraph - man they were not kind. I don't know what kind of box office Venom will do, but critics are not encouraging folks to go and see it.

i don't think the intended audience for this shitshow of a movie reads the critics. They probably can't read.

The only Venom in which I'm interested.

I remember seeing the trailer in a theatre (to see Black Panther) and the audience laughed at Hardy's accent: Brooklyn via Liverpool via Toronto?

[quote]but they need to be humbled - they can't keep churning out garbage and expecting to make tons of money.

Who is they? They're already humbled. They haven't had a hit in ages! The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was an abomination.

R118, the few reviews I read of The Meg made it seem like the movie was a fun ride and not really that bad if you go in with low expectations. I wasn't expecting much but the low quality was still a shock, partly because I've absolutely adored The Meg audiobooks as background noise while painting. The books are obviously action-thrillers and quite trashy themselves but they work. The movie however is closer to Sharknado than to Jaws. It's way below normal Hollywood standards and that was the biggest shock. I've no idea how the movie was put into a worldwide theatrical distribution since it should've been straight to dvd/blu-ray or wherever crappy films go these days. Then again current global B.O. is $525M so obviously the whole thing worked.

Another head scratcher is The Meg's budget which is supposed to be $125M before P&A. There's no fucking way they used all that money properly for the production. Unless they paid each and everyone of the Chinese extras $100k for their two seconds on the screen.

B+ Cinemascore, same as Justice League and Amazing Spider-Man 2

I'm over these comic book based movies they all have the same formula and are not memorable.

Maybe Tom isn't happening because of that bisexual thing he said years ago. Then when he became B-list, his PR tried to scrub the internet of that interview.

I saw Spider-Man homecoming a couple of months ago. Hardy doppelganger Logan Marshall Green was in it. I miss took him for Hardy and was really excited about the Spider-Man / Venom connection. I guess I was wrong.

There was much to be worried about here with Venom heading into the weekend. There was plenty of bad buzz surrounding the movie from internal studio debates if the movie should be rated PG-13 or R, to rumored creative difference between director Ruben Fleischer and Tom Hardy (the director wanted Venom to be serious, Hardy preferred more comedy; the movie in the end has both tones), to reshoots, to a backlash among fans over Venom being left out of the teaser, to noise that the pic was being edited down to the wire and wasn’t available to show to press until late last week. And then, oy, the reviews!

An actor shouldn’t dicktate the tone of the movie!

R30 This thread is the first time read that she was even in the movie.

i'm reading the BO is good so far...

Box Office Mojo was predicting a $60 million dollar opening. After Thursday’s box office the prediction is $55 million.

I wonder if we are entering a time when Marvel movies don’t get critical appreciation but audience flock to their movies anyway. DC movies are critical duds but people seem to enjoy them.

Box Office Mojo: SATURDAY AM UPDATE: Sony's release of Venom topped the charts on Friday with a massive $32.75 million and is looking to easily top the previous October opening weekend record. At this time the studio is projecting a three-day performance around $70.5 million while rival studios anticipate as much as $80+ million for the weekend. The film received a "B+" CinemaScore from opening day audiences, matching the grades for both Suicide Squad and Justice League.

R127 Fair enough.

R131 I'm sure that's not the first time Hardy's done that on a film.

[quote] rumored creative difference between director Ruben Fleischer and Tom Hardy (the director wanted Venom to be serious, Hardy preferred more comedy; the movie in the end has both tones

Fleischer's vision dominated the first half (the exposition) and Hardy's - the second half. IMHO, Hardy saved this movie. Fleischer tried an overly serious tone in the beginning, but it was unimaginative and longwinded. Hardy's comedy approach worked much better - it livened things up and was a hoot.

Hardy gave a great delirious performance. Though his accent was funny. Someone described it as Boston via Liverpool via Toronto, ha.

Maybe I'm just dim, but I don't understand where the art comes into Hardy's shambling & rambling technique.

What is he trying to get across with it? How does it deepen and crystallise the story in his films? How is his chimerical accent meant to be a tool (rather than a crutch)? Why does he apply this approach to all his roles? Is it considered so unique and fresh and advanced because it defies the 'classical' style of Thesps? Can he actually act?

His style takes me out of the frame of the productions he's in; it's so distracting trying to follow his speech patterns and lurching tics that I often lose interest or focus when watching his movies. I don't want to write him off but...

By far, Hardy is the best thing about this movie

I agree, r139. If Hardy is a lead in a film, I will watch as I give him the benefit of the doubt that he'll give a great performance.

BOX OFFICE MOJO: It was a record weekend at the box office for Sony's release of Venom, which delivered a massive $80 million, topping the previous October opening weekend record by more than $20 million.

Additionally, Warner Bros.'s A Star is Born more than carried its own weight with a stellar debut of its own, topping $40 million for its opening weekend and helping this become the largest October weekend of all-time.

One interesting note is while Venom's audience was predictably male leaning at 59%, only 36% of the overall audience was 25 years of age or older. Comparatively, 46% of Ant-Man and the Wasp's audience was 25+, 46% of Suicide Squad and 69% of Justice League. In fact, Venom had a younger overall audience than even Spider-Man: Homecoming which played to an audience of which 49% was 25 years of age or older.

That does not shock, R141. Typical little boys love nothing better than badass mutant aliens that terrorise civilians, particularly if they also double up as ripped-dudes who ride cool motorcycles and get into street-fights.

If you haven't seen the short film Sergeant Slaughter, My Big Brother Hardy did in 2011 now is the time.

I just watched it. It was better than I thought it would be, though still atrocious.

100% certainty than it will a commercial hit.

R143, if I had been the actor playing Hardy's brother I would have been in heaven when he threw me down on the bed, straddled me naked and pushed his nose right into mine.

R145, I know, right :) People who haven't bothered to watch the short film at R143 should know that Hardy spends almost a minute naked showing his dick and balls, and a very nice body.

I saw the film yesterday. It's a quick and dirty superhero film, and I liked it. I'm honestly a bit baffled by the terrible reviews it's been getting. Sure it's not the best film out there but it's still quite a solid little superhero action flick. I wasn't bored for a second and I enjoyed the movie about a hundred times more than The Avengers: Age of Ultron, or Logan which reviewers raved about.

IGN, which routinely gives episodes of Legends of Tomorrow, Arrow or Agents of SHIELD 9 or even 10 ratings gave the film only a score of 4.0 with a tagline stolen from the film "A turd in the wind". I mean what the hell? They even gave The Meg 7.3 which is... just.. argh. Oh well, apparently Venom has something most reviewers just don't like, I'm just not sure what. The film is technically well made, the actors do a good enough job and the film has a sort frenetic energy that I enjoyed. I was seriously waiting the film turn bad and when it didn't happen I was like wow, this is a nice film.

I'm so happy this movie is tanking. Tom Hardy deserves all the hate and mock we can get, he's a true narcissistic asshole.

You really have much emotional investment in Tom Hardy’s failure or success r148?

R148, what makes you think the movie's tanking? It's been doing quite well and it broke the October opening weekend record. No one was expecting it to be a billion dollar film.

B.O. after six days:

Domestic: t $102,846,991 + Foreign: t $127,152,882 = Worldwide: t $229,999,873 t

I saw it. Too chaotic. The lame-o humor falls flat. Monster is stomach-churning. Michelle Williams is miscast as Blonde Babe Girlfriend.

Sit til after the credits end for a special surprise.

It’s a box office hit

His performances are never subtle, but Tom Hardy is extremely talented. I wish he was more discerning with his films though, he always goes for the big paycheck. And what a disaster that TV show he created/produced/acted was.

[quote] I saw it. Too chaotic. The lame-o humor falls flat. Monster is stomach-churning. Michelle Williams is miscast as Blonde Babe Girlfriend.

I can only assume the slightly chaotic and and off-kilter vibe was totally what the director was after. I haven't read the comics but I see the weirdness being partly what Venom is all about. I assume this is one of the main reasons reviewers can't seem to stand the film since it makes it a bit harder to grasp. The film is quite humorous and I liked that a lot. The most of it is quite low key and gives the film depth the same way as Deadpool 1 had it done, although there's no denying Deadpool certainly did it better. Still, Venom works on meta levels that you apparently either get and appreciate or you don't.

The character of Venom was awesome, I really liked him. I fell in love with him already in the trailers. I went in expecting to hate Williams since some reviews claimed there's zero chemistry between her and Hardy but I ended up liking her, especially with her new boyfriend. The trio was actually quite sweet, and I liked each and every one of them.

BTW, although I really enjoyed the film I'm not denying there's certain lameness to it. It could've gone further in various ways. But still, I think some people just fail to get what the film is all about. And I totally get it, since there certainly are films I personally can't stand that other people love.

My hetero brother and his friends have told me that Tom Hardy is their man crush.

Collapse????

This is the #1 movie in the world.

Number one for the second week. 378 million worldwide. I'm shocked.

I thought Venom was doing OK at the boxoffice. It is, isn't it?

Venom did not “collapse” just because critics gave thumbs down. Venom is like a DC comics movie: critics hated it but audience can’t get enough. See Suicide Squad. Horrible movie but a box office hit with a sequel on the way.

Venom: is #1 at the box office again with $142 million domestic after two weeks. Go Tom Hardy!

I would've preferred a more serious take on the character and more moral ambiguity but I guess they succeeded for what they were going for. It's much less interesting than it could've been, and in some ways a a waste of Hardy's talent, but still passable. I'm still hoping for an alternate take on the character in some form or another.

I went to see it because of Hardy. No matter what he's in, or how big or small the role, he gives a great performance. He didn't disappoint with Venom either.

Riz Ahmed was also boring as hell. I was worried when I saw and trailer and hoped he had something special planned up his sleeve but no, he is as bland as bland can be.

[quote]Riz Ahmed was also boring as hell. I was worried when I saw and trailer and hoped he had something special planned up his sleeve but no, he is as bland as bland can be.

Anyone who isn't Hardy wasn't served in this film. I liked that they didn't make Michelle Williams' character a haranguing type. I liked that she and her boyfriend were helping Eddie versus being his antagonists.

[quote] The film is technically well-made, the actors do a good enough job and the film has a sort frenetic energy that I enjoyed. I was seriously waiting the film turn bad and when it didn't happen I was like wow, this is a nice film.

'So Okay, It's Average'. That's worse than a damning review.

"Nice" and "good enough" are forgettable and forgettable is the last thing a decent film ought to be.

Sony shouldn't gamble on a sequel. I don't think it will perform as well. They should just be happy with Spider-man and Jumanji being successes.

Reviews don't really mean a thing. I went to see Dunkirk last year because every critic was either creaming themselves or soaking wet because of it. I fell asleep for the first time in a theater ever while watching it.

I went to see Venom and it was a good popcorn movie. Hardy was great, and I was entertained for a couple hours. The shit reviews from "professional critics" can go to hell.

[quote]You really have much emotional investment in Tom Hardy’s failure or success [R148]?

Plenty of posters on this thread seem to - as well as in the failure or success of the movie itself.

[quote] An actor shouldn’t dicktate the tone of the movie!

LOL at "dicktate".

Ryan Reynolds fared pretty well with controlling the tone of the first Deathpool movie even after the studio cut the movie's budget.

Sorry, DEADPOOL.

Go Michelle Williams!!!!

She finally said yes to a popcorn comic movie and it BLEW UP MEGA LARGE!!!

So excited for her. Hopefully she got points on this movie because her salary was $1 million.

She's the best actress of her generation. Hopefully she'll be remembered with a legacy now because it wasn't looking good for her, despite her five thousand Oscar noms via Harvey.

Michelle is one of my favorites and it seems like she's more open to commercial films than in the past. I never would've thought she would be the biggest star coming outta Dawson's Creek.

I hope Tom Holland shows up in the next one and Hardy pounds his juicy little spiderhole

[quote] 'So Okay, It's Average'. That's worse than a damning review. "Nice" and "good enough" are forgettable and forgettable is the last thing a decent film ought to be.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the hell out of the movie. Yes it's not a huge and deep superhero film à la X-Men: Days of Future Past (probably my favorite superhero film ever with X2) but like I said it's a quick and dirty superhero flick, and it works as such. Just like it worked for the first Deadpool. Sure Venom could've been better made, it could've been slightly tighter, but I really like how it turned out. I wasn't bored for one second while watching it, and I was surprised how short the film seemed to be even though it's almost two hours. That tells I was utterly satisfied and entertained the whole time I was in the theater.

It is a "nice" movie and I don't mean that negatively at all. I was reacting to reviews saying it's a bad film, which it really isn't. The same reviewers are giving four to five stars to most MCU films and yet I've seen so many MCU films that, yes, are in some ways better made and have more happening in them but are average as hell. I many times can't remember what truly happened in them the next day. They are technically well-made but utterly forgettable junk. Compared to them I just really enjoyed Venom more.

It's doing gangbusters despite the critics.

R159 Really curious to see if Jared is gonna be in the sequel of SS. It’s either him or James Gunn. What a delight.

I liked Venom, better than all the other popcorn movies. Hardy is a versatile actor and I really like what he’s doing.

Who’s Jared?

Bump

R176 Was that supposed to be a joke? Jared Leto.

I don’t think Jared is up to the point where he doesn’t need a last name anymore. He’s not Ellen or Oprah.

[quote]It’s either him or James Gunn.

Why is it an either or situation? Do they refuse to work with each other?

R179 Well, yeah. Basically James Gunn has been trashing Leto for two years now, calling him out on his pedo tendencies ( sleeping with 16 models) etc. So he’s he gonna be game now that he has to work with him or not?

It's now available on torrents

Budget $100–116 million

Box office $852.7 million

Watched this movie on demand tonight and loved it. Tom Hardy always comes through. However, he and Michelle Williams had zero chemistry. I found her to be the weak link in the film and not in Tom's league. She was a strange casting decision. But I believe there will be a sequel and I look forward to it.

My gaydar goes off everyone I see him on screen. He’s an attractive man and I can be wrong

Michelle William's wig and accent were fucking horrible. She should have used her normal pixie cut and spoke like a human being in her regular voice.

How much money will Hardy pocket from this salary plus backend points holy crap.