REVIEW: Venom

Now here's something I definitely didn't expect to see in theaters. When Sony Pictures, the "studio" behind such "movies" as Peter Rabbit and the Ghostbusters remake, announced a standalone film starring Spider-Man's longtime nemesis, Venom, I decided then and there that I'd abstain from paying money to see it as a form of protest. It was obvious to me that Sony was simply trying to extort more money from Marvel Studios, holding Spidey and friends ransom; if Kevin Feige wasn't gonna let Amy Pascal muck up his MCU clubhouse, then Sony would simply have to do everything they could to poison the Spider-Man brand in the meantime. They're hanging on by a thread as it is, might as well bet it all on black and hope for the best. The symbiote arc felt like a natural next step for the MCU's take on the wallcrawler (considering how Spider-Man Homecoming used Peter Parker's costume as a metaphor for him becoming his own hero, and Venom is literally a living Spider-Man suit looking to control its host, but I'm getting ahead of myself), and seeing Sony squander such a concept over petty company politics left a bad taste in my mouth. Venom was not a movie I needed to pay money to see, since any financial success it enjoyed would damage the MCU that I've come to love so well. But then Disney fired James Gunn, so screw it, go team Venom!

The plot, curiously enough, contains exactly no reference to Spider-Man whatsoever (despite Sony still clinging to the movie rights for the character and his entire supporting cast); a daunting prospect, seeing as how Venom is a supervillain spawned from one of Spider-Man's old costumes (actually an alien symbiote he picked up during the Secret Wars) bonding to a bitter journalist named Eddie Brock. This backstory is the entire reason Venom himself is a sort of dark reflection of Spider-Man; naturally, I was skeptical of Sony's ability to faithfully adapt the character to the big screen without once bringing the main hero into the mix. After all, we remember how well it turned out the last time a studio tried to spin-off a supervillain as an anti-hero in a standalone film that contained no trace of their comic book origins.

Surprisingly enough, the film more or less pulls off crafting a faithful depiction of Venom without once even alluding to the existence of Spider-Man (which is more than I can say for Topher Grace's take on the character in Spider-Man 3). The specific inspiration for this incarnation comes from Venom's Lethal Protector solo-series from the 90's, in which he took on the role of a wise-cracking anti-hero, rather than a tortured soul literally consumed by notions of vengeance. Make no mistake, this is not a serious film in any sense of the word. The Venom we get here is  much more "Strangers in the Night", as opposed to the "monster metaphor for addiction and abuse" we see in more modern stories. The result is a surprisingly silly buddy flick that ends up being the best superhero movie of 2006.

This is a movie that all but entirely ignores every bit of evolution the superhero genre has gone through in the past decade, to the point where I don't think I even need to talk about the plot (but will briefly anyway, because hey). Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, an investigative journalist who's down on his luck after attempting to expose the shady Life Foundation and its charismatic, Steve Jobs-ian CEO, Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed). While snooping around Drake's sinister science lab, Eddie becomes bonded to an alien symbiote named Venom (also voiced by Hardy). Together, the two form an unlikely bromance as they attempt to stop Drake's sinister schemes and win back Eddie's ex-fiance (Michelle Williams). There's some action, some comedy, finish things up with the most obvious sequel tease of all time, and roll credits. Despite a near two hour runtime, it doesn't feel nearly that long, so while the story definitely isn't what I'd call good, I can at least say that it doesn't bother wasting anyone's time.

If there's one thing I definitely liked about this movie, it would be Tom Hardy. You can tell he's really having a blast with the role, elevating the clunky dialog and bland plot, and that makes all the difference in the world when everything else here is thoroughly mediocre to outright bad. Apparently 40 minutes of footage was slashed from the final cut, the majority of which supposedly contained additional scenes of Eddie and Venom getting to know one another (scenes which Tom Hardy cited as his favorite parts of the movie). While it may have hurt the pacing, giving Hardy more screentime to talk to himself would have only improved the film for me. Eddie and the symbiote have an oddly endearing dynamic, definitely moreso than any of the other characters in the film (although Venom's odd fondness for Williams' character was pretty cute as well).

It all works in service of the surprisingly light tone, which feels much more in line with a screwball buddy comedy than a horror/action/sci-fi adventure. Like I said before, this isn't the tortured, nuanced, modern Venom we all know, so much as it is the wacky, nutty, 90's Venom of the past; part of me really wishes this was a period piece set in the early 90's, chock full of references to The Fresh Prince and Beanie Babies. At least then the film would have some sort of identity, and you could maybe write off the generic plot and story beats as "a charming throwback to a simpler kind of superhero movie". As is, this just feels like the executives at Sony dusted off the crib notes Avi Arad has had stashed in his desk drawer for the past 20 years and used them to throw a movie together while they desperately try to get the SUMC (Sony Universe of Marvel Characters, for the uninitiated) off the ground.

Outside of Tom Hardy's performance (and the so-embarrassing-it's-amazing Eminem song during the credits), literally everything else in this movie falls flat. Ahmed and Williams are fine as the megalomaniacal villain and flat love interest, the special effects are nothing special, and the action is sparse and serviceable (except for the climax, in which a black goo monster and a gray goo monster fight in an industrial area at night against a pitch-black sky, reaching Bayformers levels of incomprehensible visual noise). It's one of the most by-the-numbers comic book movies I've ever seen, and while adhering to a formula isn't an inherently bad thing, you'd usually want at least one unique or extraordinary element to elevate the entire thing above the formula it adheres to. The only feather in Venom's cap is a pretty fun Tom Hardy performance, and it's not even close to being his best work. You can tell he's just goofing around, it's like a vacation for him in-between real movies. Tom Hardy is the one element at play here that keeps Venom from being a purely negative experience, but it's not like you can compare Eddie Brock to Max Rockatansky or Charlie Bronson. There's no emotion, no underlying themes or metaphors, it's just a series of mildly amusing sequences interspersed alongside markedly less amusing sequences.

It's no secret that Venom was originally going to be released with an R rating before being mercilessly trimmed down to a PG-13 (thus ensuring a wider audience would be able to see it in theaters). Judging from its respectable show at the October box office, I'd say this gambit paid off, but only from a purely financial standpoint. Like I've said so far, the only really positive thing about this movie is that it's kinda fun, and I can definitively say without a doubt in my mind that it would have been exponentially more fun if we got some gore, swearing, and nudity in there as well. With how CGI-intensive the fight scenes are, it's painfully obvious that the original end result was meant to be far bloodier than what we ended up with. During one sequence, in which Venom faces off against a bunch of riot cops, he picks one up over his head, one arm on the officer's torso, the other on his legs. He appears primed to tear the poor schlub clean in half, but instead just sort of gently tosses him off to the side, making me wonder why they gave that moment so much focus. And that's not even counting all the heads that are eaten off-screen and obvious four-letter words that were ADR'd out of existence. Despite a brisk pace, the film looks like it was edited with a chainsaw; it constantly feels as though it's holding back whenever it tries to be dark or comedic, which are the only two tones this movie has to offer. Venom made bank at the box office, so we're definitely getting a sequel (take a fat guess at what the sequel is going to be... congratulations, you guessed correctly). My only hope is that Venom 2 is a hard R, with Tom Hardy not only starring, but executive producing as well. He's more than earned some creative control of the franchise moving forward, considering he's literally the only thing keeping this from being a totally braindead, joyless experience.

Venom is not even close to being a good movie, but I can't say I had a bad time watching it. If you're a fan of the character (specifically his campy, dated, 90's roots), you're going to get the satisfaction of seeing Venom done justice on the big screen and exactly nothing else. The plot is clichéd nonsense, the action is toothless, and there's literally nothing special or notable about it aside from Tom Hardy. With the right audience, it could be a fun enough time, but that's all it is. I can't say I recommend it, but it's also far from the worst thing Sony has put out in recent years. If they could find some way to implement this version of Venom into the MCU, I'd be all for it. But as far as the actual movie goes, the best part part of the entire thing was the two minutes of Into the Spider-Verse footage we got to see after the credits had finished rolling.

REVIEW: The Spectacular Spider-Man

Everyone has experienced the kind of pain I'm about to share with you all. That hopeless longing for the one that got away; that one perfect show that was mercilessly struck down in its prime. Plotlines left unresolved, questions left unanswered, so much potential gone right down the drain. And even though it hurts to remember that such a great story is left without an ending, you keep coming back, again and again, because even though it's unfinished, it's just that good. Everyone has that one show; so what was her name? For me, it was a little cartoon by the name of The Spectacular Spider-Man. It premiered back in March of 2008, on the CW's Kids' WB block before moving to Disney XD after the Marvel acquisition of 2009 (more on that later).

It had been five years since the last animated Spider-Man show (MTV's more teen-oriented take, starring Neil Patrick Harris) and nearly a decade since the classic "spider blood, spider blood, radioactive spider blood" Spider-Man of the late 90's; the webhead was due for a return. Enter Greg Weisman, of Disney's Gargoyles fame. Together with his crew, they set out to make the definitive Spider-Man cartoon, blending elements from classic Lee/Romita/Ditko storylines with the contemporary works of the Ultimate universe. The end result is exactly what they were going for; this is, unquestionably, the best Spider-Man adaptation of all time. If you'll allow me to gush further, I'll be happy to explain why.

Internally, the series was referred to as "the education of Peter Parker", with episodes taking the name of subjects from highschool classes (the first arc, comprised of the episodes Survival of the Fittest, Interactions, and Natural Selection all fall under Biology 101, for example). This approach had a dual meaning, however, as the series not only follows Peter trying to learn and grow as a human being, but as a superhero as well. This is a Spider-Man who, despite his inherent cleverness and upstanding nature, still makes mistakes from time to time, some as simple as missing curfew, others as severe as indirectly giving rise to villains such as Electro and Venom. He's flawed, but he's not hopeless, we sympathize with Peter because he has more on his plate than anyone his age should be expected to handle. It's a classic element of the Spider-Man character and the show goes out of its way to throw us one emotional curveball after another, to the point that the more reserved character drama of Peter's highschool life can at times become more engaging than the slickly-animated action sequences.

The show manages to strike the perfect balance between fresh and innovative and the kind of classic storytelling one might expect from a Spider-Man show. There's a clear reverence for the source material, namely the old-school Amazing Spider-Man comics of the 60's and 70's, yet certain elements (such as the roles, personalities, and ethnicities of the supporting cast) are updated for the modern era, all while keeping the spirit of those classic comics very much alive. As the show's producers put it, "we tried to follow what we came to call "The Five Cs": Contemporary, Cohesive, Coherent, Classic and iConic." Through the benefit of hindsight, the showrunners were able to look back on the decades of Spider-Man stories and determine what was truly essential, boiling down the myriad interpretations of each and every character into their base essence. The result is a concentrated bomb of spider-goodness; despite the modern approach to these classic characters and scenarios, everything feels exactly as it should be. Seldom does an adaptation truly "get" its source material as well as with Spectacular; it's a show that prioritized understanding the tone and characterization of what it was working with, and the result is, well, spectacular.

That said, the show's strengths don't exclusively lie in the realm of engaging characters and plotlines. The art direction (care of Sean "Cheeks" Galloway) lends the show a very smooth, stylized art style that animates superbly well. Spider-Man feels far more lithe and flexible than he ever has before, so the moments where the action ramps up truly feel (as clichéd as this comparison is) like the panels of a comic book brought to life, full of energy and excitement. This is helped along by a superb vocal cast, namely Josh Keaton as Peter Parker. I may alienate some people when I say that Keaton is, without a doubt, the superior Spider-Man. As Kevin Conroy is to Batman, so is Josh Keaton to the webhead. His is a voice that will invade your head whenever you read a Spider-Man comic (or at the very least, one set during Peter's high school years). The rest of the cast is a veritable who's-who of voice acting talent; Clancy Brown, John DiMaggio, Lacey Chabert, Kevin Michael Richardson, Daran Norris, Ben Diskin, Steve Blum, and even the likes of Peter MacNicol, Robert Englund, Keith David, and Ed Asner. Each voice is utterly perfect, further cementing that original vision of making the definitive Spider-Man show. There's also the show's habit of constantly tossing hints and teasers at more comic-savvy viewers; frequently, villains will appear ahead of time in their civilian guise, doing whatever it is they do before the horrible accident that condemns them to a life of villainy. It's touches like these that really make the show feel alive, as though episodes don't necessarily start and end with the supremely catchy theme song. Even aside from being an amazing Spider-Man show, Spectacular ends up being an amazing show, period.

So what happened?

In December of 2009, the Walt Disney Company purchased Marvel Entertainment for the whopping sum of $4.24 billion. Given Marvel's (still to this day) tricky web of broadcasting and distribution rights among its myriad properties, the film and television rights for Spider-Man remained in the hands of Sony. Although Spectacular Spider-Man was critically-acclaimed and saw financial success through the sale of toys and home video releases, Sony relinquished the television rights to Spidey back to Marvel, in exchange for a hefty cash settlement. However, the specific rights to Spectacular remained with Sony, leaving either company unable to continue the series in any way, shape, or form. Disney would eventually go on to create their own Spider-Man cartoon in the form of Disney's Marvel's Ultimate Spider-Man, a disgustingly low-effort 20-minute toy commercial that served to do nothing but remind us what we had lost with Spectacular. 

As it stands, it seems as though the show will never again see any kind of continuation. Despite a strong cult following and the support of an enthusiastic crew, it's unlikely we'll see the likes of Spectacular Spider-Man ever again. Then again, Samurai Jack just wrapped up its fifth season after a twelve-year hiatus, and Young Justice (also from Weisman) is poised to return in 2018 on a new DC streaming platform; anything is possible. In the meantime, I highly recommend picking up the Blu-Ray box set of the complete series; unless a revival is seen as profitable, there's no reason for anyone, whether it be Sony or Disney, to go through the trouble of giving us a continuation. At the end of the day, we got less than half of what we were supposed to with Spectacular Spider-Man; the only upside of having so little time with this series is that 100% of it is pure quality. Some have compared this to Batman The Animated Series, saying it's nearly as good; I'd go as far to say it's even better, seeing as how Spectacular doesn't have a single episode like I've Got Batman in My Basement. The show starts out solid, but truly picks up once the Green Goblin is introduced in episode 7. From that point on, it's nothing but pure, unadulterated nirvana for Spider-Man fanatics like myself. Take it from me, if you consider yourself a fan of the wall-crawler in any capacity, there's exactly zero reasons not to seek this show out immediately. 'Nuff said!

REVIEW: Spider-Man Homecoming

Okay, I should probably make one thing clear before we begin; I'm not exactly the most unbiased source for an opinion on anything involving Spider-Man. Spidey's been a part of my childhood for about as long as I can remember and to this day remains my absolute favorite superhero of all time (sorry, Aquaman). Whenever I'm met with something Spider-Man related, my reaction is either immensely positive or resoundingly negative, very rarely does anything fall into that middle ground of "it was okay". It's a property I hold near and dear to my heart, which explains why I find myself so frequently enraged at Sony Pictures' shabby treatment of the web-slinger; as if pitching a standalone Venom movie (which wouldn't feature Spider-Man in any capacity) as a Zombieland-esque comedy wasn't enough, there was that bevy of leaked Sony emails not too long ago, in which we learned that the studio at one point toyed with the idea of reinventing Peter Parker as an EDM vegan who posts about hot power yoga on his Snapchat. Suffice to say, the character would be far safer in the loving hands of Marvel Studios and Disney, far away from Amy Pascal and her terrible, terrible ideas. Which is why I was both hopeful and ambivalent towards the cheekily-named Spider-Man Homecoming for some time. On one hand, my favorite comic book hero was finally joining the MCU in a way that appeared to stick closer to the source material than any previous iteration. On the other hand, this is the third attempt at a Spider-Man series in the past decade (Spider-Man 3 released ten years ago in 2007, in case you didn't feel needlessly old yet today); as much as I love the ol' webhead, I too began to feel the pangs of Spider-Man fatigue. The Marvel formula was becoming more and more noticeable as time went on, Sony was still involved, and (as with Wonder Woman), I was forced to endure a load of tiresome and embarrassing outrage and controversy leading up to the film's release. I expected this to be a perfectly inoffensive, by-the-numbers superhero flick; to my surprise, I not only liked Spider-Man Homecoming, I really liked it.

Set a few months after the events of Civil War, the plot follows Peter Parker (Tom Holland) struggling to live the life of an ordinary teenage kid, despite being able to do whatever a spider can. Under the guise of an internship for Tony Stark (Robert Downy Jr, who is thankfully in far less of this movie than the advertising would have you believe), Peter takes to the streets as the friendly neighborhood Spider-Man, hoping to impress Mr. Stark with his do-gooding enough to land a spot on the recently-splintered Avengers. While his heart is in the right place, Pete's overzealousness leads to a run in with an underground weapons ring led by Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton, insert Birdman joke here), otherwise known as the Vulture. Faced with a job too small in scale to attract the heavy-hitters at Avengers Tower, it's up to Spider-Man to keep these advanced weapons off the streets, foil the Vulture's plans, and find a date to his high school's homecoming dance. 

Considering Spider-Man is my favorite hero of all time, it's pretty amazing how soundly the marketing campaign killed what hype I had stored up for this movie. The trailers seemed to divulge the entire plot and the posters painted the whole thing as "Iron Man 3.5: featuring Spider-Boy"; it's no small feat to make the third Thor film look leagues better than Spider-Man, but damned if Marvel's (or more likely Sony's) marketing department didn't pull it off. I was glad to find, however, that all of my concerns were for nothing. Iron Man appears for about a collective ten minutes and the plot still managed to throw me for a few loops here and there; this is very much Peter Parker's story, and that's something that's tremendously important considering this is the character's true standalone debut in the MCU. If there's one thing you don't want to screw up, it's the introduction of Spider-Man, of all characters, into your shared cinematic universe. Luckily, director Jon Watts and company pull it off with aplomb; it's been said that it felt as though someone made a checklist of things we'd seen before in a Spider-Man movie and then deliberately left those aspects out of Homecoming. I couldn't agree more. Despite being reboot number three, this manages to feel like a fresh and original take on the character, all while staying true to what we've come to expect from Spider-Man thus far. There are plenty of moments where Peter has to hide his identity from his friends and family, yet nothing that feels overly trite or done-before. It feels like its own movie, its own take on this property, and that's hugely important considering everything this movie has going against it, just by virtue of existing when it does.

It's also worth mentioning that I wouldn't necessarily consider this an action movie, so much as it is a coming-of-age comedy with some action bits in it. The characters take precedent over web-swinging, wall-crawling fisticuffs, and for as much as the fanboy in me loves to see Spider-Man beat up some bad guys, this is honestly how a proper Spidey film should be done; characters first, action second. The entire thing is very down-to-earth in tone, which compliments Spider-Man's role in the MCU perfectly. Part of me was afraid that the inclusion of details such as Iron Man meant that this film was merely a formality, a prologue to fast-tracking Peter Parker onto the Avengers where he'd face world-wide threats rather than petty crooks and bank robbers. Instead, the movie goes for a decidedly street-level, working-class tone, both with its story, hero, and villain. There's no massive blue beam firing into the sky and no major city is destroyed during the climax; the primary conflict involves Spider-Man trying to stop the Vulture and his cronies from selling high-tech guns on the black market. That's it. It's simple and refreshing and exactly the kind of thing Spider-Man should be dealing with.

I'd be remiss if I didn't talk about the Vulture, played by the immortal Michael Keaton. There's a host of good performances here (Tom Holland is, as I said in my Civil War Review, the most accurate Spider-Man to ever grace the big screen), but Keaton is by far the best of the bunch. If you'd have told me a few years ago that the absolute best villain the MCU had to offer was the Vulture, I'd have laughed in your face. But the fact still stands that this take on the character is engaging and refreshing, while still staying true to the character's comic book roots. Adrian Toomes is a man who was cheated by the system and is simply looking to provide for his family. While he's by no means a hero (attempting to murder a child is pretty low, no matter how noble your motivation may be), he's far more sympathetic and relatable than I think anyone could have expected. The best kind of villians are the ones who not only believe they're doing the right thing, but whose motivations make perfect logical sense to the viewer. We don't necessarily root for the Vulture, but we completely get where he's coming from. There's a series of very strong-yet-subtle parallels between Peter and Toomes that makes for a genuinely compelling hero/villain relationship, to the point that the best scene in the movie involves Michael Keaton simply sitting at a traffic light. This is exactly the kind of fleshed-out antagonist the MCU is in desperate need of.

Unfortunately, not everything here is ideal. Leading up to its release, a great deal of controversy surrounded the mysterious character of Michelle, played by Zendaya. I won't spoil anything here, but this character just felt utterly pointless. For all the promotion Michelle got leading up to the film's release, I'm fairly certain she ends up having less screen time than the Shocker (and I'll bet you didn't even know Shocker was in this movie). Zendaya gives a poor performance, delivering some of the few jokes in the movie that fall utterly flat; in the end, the plot would be exactly the same (I'd even argue that it would be marginally better) had she been cut out entirely. Her inclusion feels like the result of an executive mandate, either from someone at Sony who wanted to drum up pointless controversy (because clearly that worked so well for last year's Ghostbusters remake) or from someone at Disney who wanted some brand synergy with one of their up and coming Disney Channel starlets. In the end, it just feels like a half-baked cop-out of an idea (and Kevin Feige's statements on the subject all but confirm this character had no other purpose than to serve as a litmus test as to what the studio could get away with).

I also wasn't a fan of the overly-comedic tone at times; don't get me wrong, this is a very funny, sharply-written movie with a number of laugh out loud moments. However, in erring on the side of outright comedy, it feels almost like the film sacrifices some of the heart that is so central to the Spider-Man character. The film gives us a nice, snappy pace that occasionally slows to allow for a quieter moment or two. However, these moments (such as Peter's interactions with his Aunt May, played here by Marissa Tomei) feel somewhat glossed over compared to the more offbeat comedy, so the drama we're clearly meant to feel comes off as not entirely earned. It's easy to make me feel things for Spider-Man, considering what a key role he played in my childhood (and I'm sure in countless others), but Homecoming never really had that Guardians of the Galaxy moment where we're made to realize just how much we actually care about the characters on-screen. Key aspects of the Spider-Man character like his deep-rooted feelings of guilt and dedication to upholding his great responsibility are all but replaced with "impressing Mr. Stark" and, while this does serve a larger character arc for Peter Parker over the course of the film, it still feels like something of an oversight at the end of the day. This film had every opportunity to really hit me where I live, and while one scene near the end came close (thanks entirely to the performance of Tom Holland), I still left the theater feeling very emotionally un-challenged. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing; not every movie has to be Logan, but some of my favorite Spider-Man moments (in both the comics, movies, and cartoons) are when things get real and boil down to simple, raw emotion, rather than just upbeat thwips and quips.

Spider-Man Homecoming isn't perfect, but it just might be the best Spider-Man film of all time; keep in mind, I say this as a nostalgia-addled fanboy for the Raimi trilogy of the mid-2000's. There's a few hiccups here and there (some of the CGI is a little garish, the action isn't anything special, and the cinematography ranges from genuinely great to outright confusing), but I still found this to be a refreshing take on a classic franchise that many assumed was done to death. It innovates where it needs to and shows us some things we've never seen before, totally justifying its existence as the most recent attempt at getting Spider-Man to work on the big screen, even considering the dismal Amazing Spider-Man 2 came out merely three years ago. If you're a fan of the comics like I am, I can't really think of a reason you'd have for disliking Spider-Man Homecoming. I look forward to seeing what Spidey's got in store for us next time, not even counting his appearance in next year's Avengers: Infinity War.

REVIEW: Clown

I feel as though, for as prevalent as the "killer clown" trope tends to be, the number of notable horror films actually featuring killer clowns is more than a little lacking. Just to name the big ones, there's the 1990 It miniseries, Killer Klowns From Outer Space, and... that's about it. I suppose you could also include Poltergeist if you really wanted to, but even that's a bit of a stretch. It's something I've always found a little surprising; coulraphobia is a pretty common fear, ripe for exploitation. Even if someone isn't necessarily "afraid" of clowns, it's not exactly difficult to make them into something reasonably creepy, at the very least. But alas, the vast majority of killer clown movies tend to end up as nothing more than straight-to-video trash you find in those "25 Horror Movies for $5" value packs. This is part of the reason I was so intrigued by Clown, a 2014 independent horror film produced by Eli Roth and directed by Spider-Man: Homecoming's Jon Watts.

Coming off like an absurdist twist between The Shining and The Fly, the plot focuses on an ordinary real-estate agent by the name of Kent McCoy (Andy Powers). Due to a double-booking incident, Kent and his wife (Laura Allen) find themselves without a clown for their son's birthday party. Thinking quickly, Kent happens upon an old clown suit in the basement of one of the properties he's selling. Setting his dignity aside for his son's special day, Kent dons the suit, nose, and rainbow wig to entertain the kids, seemingly saving the party. The next morning, however, Kent is shocked to discover that, for whatever reason, the clown suit won't come off. The wig has attached itself to his head and the goofy red nose causes him physical pain whenever he tries to remove it. It isn't long before Kent begins to realize that he is physically turning into a clown; his skin begins to turn chalk white, his feet grow longer, and the wig begins to replace his real hair down to the roots. On top of all that, we learn that the clown suit was in fact not a clown suit at all, but rather the skin of an Icelandic demon known as a "Clöyne", which used its colorful appearance to lure children to its cave before devouring them whole. It's up to Kent to discover a cure for his monstrous condition, before the demon's hold (and his newfound hunger for children) overwhelm him for good.

Right from the premise (and the movie's opening, which features a soundtrack of children screaming over vintage depictions of happy clowns), it's plain to see that this isn't a film that takes itself entirely seriously. There's a modicum of self-awareness that comes with a story about a man becoming a were-clown, and I'm glad to see that the filmmakers understood this. There's a good mixture of genuine suspense and pitch-black comedy to be found here, but I almost feel as though the end result is a bit uneven, to the point that some of it comes off as a bit too mean-spirited at times. Mixing genres such as horror and comedy can create a great sense of juxtaposition if done well, but it requires a delicate touch. If we actually end up taking something seriously, only for it to be undercut with a joke moments later, than the tone comes off as inconsistent, and the respective elements of the horror and comedy genres end up blending about as well as oil and water. There are moments where the film really does go for a serious, straightforward tone and, to the credit of the filmmakers, it honestly works quite well as a legitimate horror film. There's a good deal of stomach-turning body-horror that comes with seeing a man fuse with a musty old clown costume, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't cringe more than a few times during Kent's vain attempts to remove it.

Things get even more dire during the second act, when we see our main character, who began as a totally ordinary guy, take on the appearance of a homeless addict. It honestly comes off like a John Wayne Gacy-esque metaphor for a pedophile trying to avoid temptation before finally giving in; watching Kent struggle against his newfound demonic hunger is really quite tragic and unpleasant in a very strong, effective kind of way. Despite the absurd premise, I honestly feel like this could have worked as a 100% serious, straightforward horror film. But this genuine sense of tension and unease is undercut by all of the dark visual humor. We watch an ordinary family man tearfully submit to cannibalistic urges after accidentally murdering a small child, but we also get to watch a laughably fake severed arm ride a tidal wave of blood down a Chuck-E-Cheese fun slide. The dark elements are too dark and the silly elements are too silly; rather than contrasting, they just end up cancelling each other out, and by the time the climax rolls around, it just feels like generic schlock with absolutely nothing in the way of emotional stakes.

Now for all my griping, I still have to hand it to the filmmakers for such a delightfully twisted concept. I'm not quite sure what it is, but the idea that someone can turn into a clown (implying that clowns are inhuman) just makes me smile deep down inside. Making it so that the first clown was really a Nordic demon who lured children away from their villages with promises of sweets and capering is just the icing on the cake. I'm such a sucker for this kind of revisionist folklore, since it gives storytellers such a wealth of opportunity to play around with the established iconography of our collective culture. It's the kind of element I enjoyed the most in films like Krampus and Rise of the Guardians; by putting a unique twist on something so immediately recognizable, we're able to further immerse ourselves in the world of the film. As one might expect, this is the part of the movie that works the best. The first two acts build up a really strong sense of tension and intrigue that, along with the existential dread of Kent's situation, completely make this film. 

Unfortunately, the final act is where it all falls apart. All of the characters stop making sense and Kent himself turns into a generic, brainless movie monster. While everyone's characterization suffers during the final act, none are worse off than Kent's wife, Meg; this may come off as nitpicking, but it seriously cannot be understated how utterly loathsome this character turns out to be. For the entire movie, she's played a relatively inoffensive role, concerned for her husband and protective of their son (Christian Destephano). In the final act, she becomes the most unlikable excuse for a protagonist I think I've ever seen; not only does she endanger and abandon her child numerous times during the final battle, but she's also totally prepared to sacrifice an innocent little girl in an attempt to sate the demon's hunger. And that's to say nothing of how she completely abandoned poor Peter Stormare at a crime scene for no reason (even though we know he's innocent, there's no way that someone who looks like Peter Stormare is found holding a bloody axe near a bunch of mutilated kids and gets away with a happy ending). This kind of character assassination is just a symptom of a much bigger problem that befalls so many great ideas; the filmmakers wrote themselves into a corner. They had this amazing idea about a man who slowly turns into an evil clown, but they had no idea how to end it. So the end result is just a series of flaccid, pointless sequences that feel like a hurried attempt to just end the movie without any loose ends. The plot ends up stretched paper thin and what was once a really engaging, original horror film ends up feeling like anything but.

I wanted so badly to like Clown. And in some ways, I really do; I like exactly two thirds of it. The final act is exactly the kind of shallow, poorly-written dreck I had hoped it wouldn't be. In its defense, I've seen far worse (and I'm willing to bet that out of all the independent killer-clown movies that have come out in the past 20 years, this is likely one of the absolute best), but it still stands that "not bad" is really the most Clown can aspire to. If you're looking for something that comes agonizingly close to joining such films as Trick R Treat and The Babadook in the realm of cult classics before nosediving back down into the land of inconsequential schlock, give Clown a look. For what it's worth, I had my fun with it, even if I don't really see myself revisiting it any time soon. All in all, it may be somewhat forgettable, but I'd be hard pressed to call it regrettable.

REVIEW: Captain America- Civil War

Out of all of the myriad entries in the monolithic money-machine that is the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I honestly think my personal favorites may be the Captain America movies. Joe Johnston's Captain America: The First Avenger was a delightfully pulpy period piece that, despite its flaws, still wins me over by way of sheer atmosphere and gumption. 2014's The Winter Soldier quickly established itself as the absolute best film the MCU had to offer (a title that has yet to be usurped). Two years later, the Russo brothers are back with Captain America: Civil War. While Winter Soldier continues to be the pinnacle of Marvel excellence, it must be said that Civil War is a strong contender for my personal favorite superhero film to date.

After the collective collateral damage of the Avengers' exploits garners criticism from the world community, legislation is brought to the table that would transfer control of the heroes to a United Nations subcommittee. Naturally, this sows dissent amongst the do-gooders; Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) is struck with a hefty dose of  guilt, especially following his involvement in the creation of Ultron, and champions the cause for registration. Meanwhile, Captain America (Chris Evans) has little faith in bureaucracy following the events of Winter Soldier, maintaining the firm belief that red-tape and hidden agendas will lead to corruption and injustice. The former friends find themselves on opposing sides of the law, and the situation is made all the more complicated by the resurfacing of Bucky Barnes, the Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan). Naturally, Cap wants to protect his old friend, which puts him at odds from the authorities hunting him down. The conflict steadily escalates from a question of ideals to a full-on clash of allegiances, where lines are drawn and alliances are both made and shattered.

To the casual observer, this could easily be mistaken for another Avengers film rather than a Captain America sequel. Everyone short of Thor and the Hulk are present and accounted for, and that's not even counting the new additions of Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) and Spider-Man (Tom Holland). In terms of scale, this is a much, MUCH larger film than Winter Soldier; though the pacing and tonal shifts can err on the somewhat clunky side, the fact that this film manages to do as much as it does as well as it does is something definitely worthy of praise. As far as Marvel blockbusters go, this is easily a contender for the densest entry yet. For it to end up not only coherent, but also compelling is a testament to the Russo brothers' strengths as filmmakers. 

As Winter Soldier proved, the Russos especially excel when it comes to directing action. Within the first five minutes of Civil War, all I could think was how this movie was immediately superior to last year's Avengers: Age of Ultron. The fight choreography on display here is airtight; as cool as it was to see the Avengers storm a HYDRA fortress or for Iron Man to don the Hulkbuster armor, it's a simple fact that well-directed combat between physical actors will manage to out-wow even the flashiest CG effect. The blows are as heavy-hitting as they are fast, and each setpiece displays wonderfully creative examples of each hero's powerset in ways that are sure to make fanboys like myself go giddy with childish delight. The excessive shaky-cam may not sit well with some, but I found the frenetic energy flowed off the screen and into my veins, leaving my heart pounding as the credits rolled. Of course, flashy action is more or less meaningless if we don't care about the people inside the super-suits. Which is why I'm glad to report that Civil War is quite possibly the most emotionally compelling Marvel film to date.

Marvel Studios has always had a knack for strong casting, so it's to be expected that everyone here does a good job. Even with such a talented cast, even with such powerful and endearing chemistry, there are still those who manage to go above and beyond. It feels as though Robert Downey Jr has become comfortable in the role of Tony Stark in recent years; Civil War provides the emotional shake-up that the character so desperately needed. RDJ steps outside of his comfort zone on this one and thrives, imbuing Tony with an intensity not matched since the very first Iron Man film. While the addition of Spider-Man felt somewhat superfluous, Tom Holland gives what is easily one of the best performances in the film; I don't hesitate in the slightest in saying that Holland's portrayal of Peter Parker does the character justice better than any I've ever seen. As much of a Spidey fan as I am, I was surprised to find that the show was stolen not by the webhead, but rather by Chadwick Boseman in his role as T'challa, the Black Panther. Motivated by revenge, T'challa brings an air of intensity and dignity not found in the majority of Marvel protagonists; he carries himself like royalty and doesn't waste his time spitting out one-liners. He's a man on a mission of pride, and he commands the viewer's attention whenever he's on screen. I wouldn't necessarily say I was "excited" or "hyped" for The Black Panther before seeing Civil War, but I certainly am now.

With all the bombastic conflict and in-fighting, it may come as a surprise to some viewers that the film does have an actual villain; filling the role of Helmut Zemo, we have Daniel Brühl. Zemo presents an interesting facet to the film. On one hand, I felt as though he was under-utilized (despite dutifully serving his purpose to the overall plot). The fact that this character is also a far cry from the Baron Zemo of the comics is something that is sure to rub readers the wrong way, at least initially. That said, despite his minimal screentime, he certainly plays a major role in the plot and is truthfully a contender for the best (or at the very least, most effective) villain Marvel has ever put out. The Marvel films very often have a problem with providing effective or interesting antagonists, and Zemo manages to be both, despite having little connection to his inspiration from the source material and next to  no direct interaction with Cap and the gang until the climax.

Speaking of complexity, I would be remiss not to praise the tact with which the film handled the primary conflict. One would expect that, despite moviegoers being asked to choose between #TEAMCAP and #TEAMIRONMAN, one side (likely the one led by the titular hero) would clearly be portrayed as being in the right. In reality, the situation isn't nearly so black and white. I went into the theater waving the flag for Team Rogers, ready to follow Captain America into the jaws of doom. By the end of it all... my allegiances admittedly hadn't changed, but I was far less critical of the Stark side of things. There is no character assassination at play here; both of our protagonists have naturally reached this point in their respective arcs over the course of several movies, and it's in Civil War that it all comes to a head. Both make good points and bad decisions, and it's ultimately up to the viewer to decide who's right and who's wrong. Cap and Tony don't disagree and immediately start wailing on each other; there's a genuine air of reluctance and discomfort hanging over the whole thing, the feeling that comes with political disagreements between friends. When punches and repulsor blasts are eventually exchanged, it feels as though it's something our heroes feel they need to do, rather than something they want to do. This unfortunately plays into an occasional feeling of tonal dissonance; as much as I love the extended Leipzig Airport fight, the upbeat tone of the sequence feels completely different from nearly everything else happening in the story. It's a contender for the best action sequence ever featured in a superhero film and I was grinning like an idiot the entire time, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't clash somewhat with the more dour subject matter which surrounded it.

Captain America: Civil War is an organic, grass-fed steak of a film. By which I of course mean it is both natural and substantial. The conflict builds and builds until it boils over into an emotional crescendo that is sure to affect films to come; make no mistake, this is no mere stepping stone on the ever-shrinking road to Thanos. This is a movie that feels like a standalone chapter in the Marvel Universe, something that was built to over the course of previous films and delivers a satisfying payoff. While the pacing and tone consistency do suffer at times as a result of just how much the film has to feature, it still stands that the overwhelming majority of what's here is pure quality. If you're looking for a superhero movie that will make you feel something, I'm hard pressed to name a better candidate than Civil War.