Review of the Reviews: Venom

I chose to analyze reviews of Venom, mostly due to the drastic difference in its critic vs. audience assessments, and also because its sequel releases October of 2020. It wasn't that easy to find a positive review of Venom, and even more difficult to find one with a credible source. However, Richard Lawson, chief critic at Vanity Fair, describes Venom as "surprisingly fun." His review is structured in paragraphs: beginning with a summary of the plot, a brief history of Venom's comic book character origins and time on the big screen, then a critique of the performances by Tom Hardy and his co-stars, and finally how even despite lost energy during the big-action sequences, an explanation of why Venom is still true to its purpose; to be entertaining. Lawson communicates this point by referencing the movie's "freewheeling spirit," and "winning earnestness to its offbeat comedy." Phrases like these, in addition to words like "amiable" and "rollicking" help to establish a charmed and slightly amused tone, to further Lawson's main argument that Venom is an honest movie, if nothing else. Lawson mostly focuses on Hardy's performance, and why that is such a huge part of what makes Venom enjoyable to watch. He describes Hardy as "an actor who might be an actual chameleon" and goes on to explain why that makes him perfect for this role, as well as applauding Michelle Williams for her unexpectedly funny performance. Lawson compares Venom to Deadpool and its sequel, arguing that it is "blessedly not as self-referential" and introduces more depth to the characters than Deadpool did. He also mentions that Riz Ahmed, who plays the money-driven mad-scientist villain, should've "leaned a little more into the megalomaniacal E--n M--k of it all." This reference to Elon Musk was likely made to create a suitable example for how the movie could have been better from a plot standpoint if this had been the case.


The negative review I found is by David Edelstein, a long-time critic from Vulture, the entertainment division of New York Magazine, who claims that Venom would not even be worth seeing if not for Tom Hardy. It is a distinctly shorter critique, but is structured similarly to Lawson's review in that it uses paragraphs to break down the plot, the acting performances, and how the movie essentially boils down to a few boring chase scenes and an unmemorable storyline. This argument is made clear with points made like how "the rules are never clear" when it comes to the alien-human physicality, and that "there isn't much suspense" in any of the fight scenes. Combined with words like "excrescence" and "gimmick," which imply that this isn't a super serious film, rather another tiring expansion to Marvel's growing cinematic empire, Edelstein forms a frustrated and repelled tone. Like Lawson, Edelstein's review focuses heavily on the performances in Venom. He says "It’s fun watching Hardy trudge down a San Francisco hill arguing with himself," but that that is about all the movie has to offer. Edelstein also mentions that someone should pay for casting Jenny Slate as a random doctor, "who doesn't get to crack a smile, let alone a joke." Lastly, he compliments Michelle Williams' performance as well, but that "the role is an insult to her talent." Edelstein didn't make any outside references except to a few other films that the director Ruben Fleischer worked on, comparing this film as "competent and unmemorable."


The point I agree with most from Lawson's positive review is that as "a dopey but amiable movie watched with an agreeable audience, Venom does an unexpectedly successful job." I think this is the most valuable argument Lawson makes, because he is essentially saying that even though a movie can have technically bad elements, it can still be considered a good movie to watch for the fun it brings to the table, which is what Venom does. The point I agree with most from Edelstein's negative review is that "It’s hard to mess up a car chase...and Fleischer certainly doesn’t, though at these speeds we should be gasping and laughing instead of just nodding our heads." I believe this is the most important point that Edelstein makes, because it encapsulates the most of what Venom is missing: excitement. Yes, there are car chases and fight scenes, but to be good ones, there needs to be more energy that Venom simply lacks in these parts.


I believe that overall, Lawson's more positive review had the more convincing argument. This is mostly because Lawson acknowledges that there are poor aspects of the film, but that those poor aspects don't necessarily mean it is a bad movie. Venom accomplished its purpose: to entertain. Film reviews can better win over the reader to the critic's argument by taking into account the entertainment value of a piece, rather than just the technical elements like plot and acting. I believe this is part of the reason why there is such a huge gap between the critics' and audience's scores of Venom, because even though critics usually look at the technicalities, they may fail to include the overall enjoyment one can get from watching a movie.


If I were to write a film review, I would think it necessary to include the obvious technical aspects of cinema, but also the entertainment value and overall watchability of the movie. This is because, such as the case with Venom, many critics fail to take into account the entertainment factor the audience would get out of watching it. I would probably try to exclude my personal opinion of the film from my review altogether, or at least acknowledge that it could be biasing my critique, because that would give the audience a better idea of how worthwhile the movie actually is.