Most critics find Venom a disappointing superhero film, with muddled storytelling and an uncertain tone overwhelming its comic possibilities. The praise clusters around Tom Hardy, whose physical commitment and odd comic energy give even several hostile reviews something to enjoy. The exchanges between Eddie and Venom are another recurring pleasure: critics often see their bickering as a glimpse of the more entertaining film that the surrounding plot fails to deliver.
Reservations centre on a timid treatment of the premise, rushed character development and action that offers little suspense. The spread is wide, though firmly weighted towards the negative. IndieWire is the clear positive outlier, finding the strangeness funny and the central relationship endearing. Hardy himself divides opinion: The Guardian finds his broad comedy a weakness, while The Hollywood Reporter considers him unusually uninteresting. For many others, he is the main reason the film remains intermittently watchable.
I
IndieWire
2 October 2018 · B · Michael Nordine
77
The review finds the film an appealingly strange, often funny departure from the superhero formula. It praises Tom Hardy’s committed dual performance and the uneasy, endearing dynamic between Eddie and Venom.
The review’s verdict and specific praise or complaint are not visible in the accessible page text. The article body is blocked by a subscription prompt.
Bradshaw finds the film clumsy, dull and dramatically anticlimactic. He singles out Hardy’s broad split-personality comedy and the lack of genuine fun as particular weaknesses.
The review finds the film a muddled, disappointing superhero outing. It criticizes the story and tone, while noting Tom Hardy’s performance as a saving grace.
The critic finds the film lacking in verve and bite. They praise the banter between Eddie and Venom, but fault the sanitized characterization and anonymous CGI battle.
The review finds the film sanitised, frustrating, and far less exciting than it should be. It praises Hardy’s committed, combustible performance, while faulting the script’s implausibly stupid characters.
Freer calls the film a mediocre origin story that fails to bring its anti-hero to life. He singles out the brief moments of lively banter between Eddie and Venom as a glimpse of a more entertaining film.
Chang finds Venom a weak, joyless franchise effort that falls short of its promise. He praises Tom Hardy’s gleefully physical performance but faults the film for sanitizing its premise and feeling cut short.
Gleiberman finds the film generic and exhausting, with Hardy’s performance often more mannered than compelling. He praises the dazzling visual effects but says they amount to diverting eye candy without much purpose.
Edelstein finds the film largely unmemorable, with Tom Hardy’s performance its main reason to watch. He praises Hardy’s amiable, flexible comic energy but faults the film for unclear rules and a lack of suspense.
Cole finds the film rushed and clumsy, with its action-heavy finale undermining the moments of eccentricity that briefly enliven it. He praises Tom Hardy’s jittery comic performance, especially Eddie’s lobster-tank scene.
McCarthy dismisses the film as an unimaginative, irredeemable entry in the Marvel universe. He complains that Eddie Brock is unconvincing as a journalist and finds Tom Hardy’s performance unusually uninteresting.
Spiegel finds the film outdated and largely lifeless, despite its lead actor’s efforts. He singles out Tom Hardy’s strange, entertaining performance as the film’s bright spot.
Kaye considers the film a tonal and creative failure, with a rushed story and little character development. He singles out the clashing humor and attempted gravitas as especially poorly handled.
The review finds Venom dated, confused and ultimately disappointing. It singles out the darkly comic chemistry between Tom Hardy and the voice of the symbiote as a glimpse of what the film could have been.
Worthington finds the film a dull, incoherent tonal mess, despite occasional entertainment value. He singles out Tom Hardy’s bizarre, manic performance as the film’s one compelling feature.
Nayman finds the film neither good nor enjoyably bad, criticizing its timid, overly sentimental approach. He praises Tom Hardy’s comic vocal ability but says the material never lets him fully shine.
The critic finds the film run-of-the-mill and not worth recommending. They fault its tonal shifts and failure to make its parts cohere, despite some enjoyable moments from Tom Hardy.
The critic finds the film a loud, illogical dud that wastes its talented cast. They single out the muddled plotting and overabundance of CGI as major flaws, while briefly praising a striking moment at the Transamerica Pyramid.
Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate