VenomMovie Ending Explained (In Detail)

Spoilers Alert:

After Solo: A Star Wars Story, Justice League and The Dark Tower comes along VENOM another major Hollywood production in which all sorts of things went wrong behind the scenes. But how noticeable is this self-proclaimed anti-superhero film? We reveal this in our review.

The Plot Summary

As a journalist, Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) has long been trying to expose the shady but brilliant founder of the Life Foundation, Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), an obsession that has already cost him his career and his relationship with his girlfriend Anne Weying (Michelle Williams). During the current research into Drake’s experiments, the alien Venom bonds with Eddie’s body, giving him not only amazing superpowers, but also the freedom to do whatever he wants. Cunning, dark, unpredictable and full of anger: Eddie must learn to control the dangerous forces that emanate from Venom. And at the same time he is intoxicated by the newfound power that he now feels within himself. As Eddie and Venom need each other to achieve their goals, they increasingly merge with each other. Finally the question arises: Is this still Eddie or already Venom?

Movie explanation of the ending

Déjà vu at Sony Pictures: Even before the film’s release, industry portals and individual interviews with film executives are talking about possible sequels and spin-off films. Although the film was made without the involvement of Kevin Feige and his creative team at Marvel Studios, fans and industry journalists are speculating whether the production will be retroactively woven into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Theories that are fueled by statements made by some of the filmmakers, some of which can be openly interpreted and others that specifically add fuel to the speculative fire. And: The director and producers became entangled in contradictory statements during the PR phase. In the middle of their promotional efforts, actors reveal that their favorite scenes didn’t end up in the finished film – as did mountains of other material. In short: The weeks and months that passed before Sony Pictures brought its Marvel comic adaptation “Venom” into theaters seemed like a copy of all the hustle and bustle surrounding “The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise of Electro.” at. Not a good omen, after all, due to the criticism from fans and critics this film received, Sony was persuaded to work with Marvel Studios and create a new, joint interpretation of Spider-Man. Why Sony still had the hubris to go it alone with “Venom” and build an independent universe that tells of villains, supporting characters and anti-heroes from the Spider-Man comics remains a mystery.

There is a thick atmosphere between Eddie (Tom Hardy) and Anne (Michelle Williams).

Thanks to the industry reports and the unvarnished interviews of those involved in “Venom”, it is no mystery what kind of project that has been plagued by hustle and bustle is now being released into the cinema. The hardness of the action was constantly being worked on. For a long time it remained unclear how cynical, dark or even superhero-ordinary the tone should be. And the story was also reshaped during production – according to leading actor Tom Hardy (“The Revenant”) 30 to 40 minutes of film ended up on the cutting room floor. At first that sounds like shameless exaggeration, after all the finished film has a running time of around 112 minutes. However, if you consider that the actual film ends after just 96 minutes, Hardy’s statements suddenly sound much more credible. The rest of the running time consists of an unusually slow running credits including atypically spacious credits and extensive bonus scenes. In this respect, it is a bit of a surprise that “Venom” is not as tumultuous as “The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise of Electro”, which oscillates between involuntary comedy, conscious camp, intense drama and disoriented idleness. Nor does “Venom” reach the cinema with such obvious creative compromises as Warner and DC’s “Suicide Squad”. “Venom” is closer to “Solo: A Star Wars Story” in the ranks of modern major Hollywood productions with a problematic production history than it is a largely functional film that seems more like a simply half-baked project – and less like a case from “Too many chefs arguing spoils the broth and then spills half of it”.

Now, depending on your individual leanings when it comes to film debacles, this is either good news or bad news. “Venom” is not a Frankenstein monster of various approaches to the same film, but rather effectively maintains the illusion of being cast from a single source. It’s just that the mold doesn’t exactly meet high standards. The biggest weakness of “Venom” is its storytelling, where assertion always trumps implementation. Protagonist Eddie Brock is introduced as a tough, successful reporter, someone who asks the burning questions and cracks even the toughest nuts. However, when he questions the intentions of a respected company, his career takes a hit – which doesn’t just throw him out of shape, but completely changes him. Now expositional dialogues claim that Eddie is generally a spineless loser who must finally learn to assert himself. The dynamic between Eddie and the main female character, lawyer Anne Weying, is similar. The relationship between the two characters goes through great ups and downs over the course of “Venom,” and the intermediate steps are puzzling. However, through Tom Hardy’s committed acting, whose intense looks and meaningful gestures show that he was actually interested in this material, and Michelle Williams’ performance, “Venom” at least partially conceals how full of holes the narrative is. Williams (“Greatest Showman”) works with nothing in the way of story material, and yet the actress, who has been nominated for multiple Oscars, puts in the work and sells Anne’s affection for Eddie as well as her anger and desperation.

Journalist Eddie uncovers secret experiments…

Williams admitted in interviews that she only did “Venom” for two reasons: money and Tom Hardy, whom she admired as a colleague and with whom she really wanted to compete with in front of the camera. And the latter gives Williams and Hardy’s scenes together some zest, even if Williams’ role has little profile, apart from the striking self-regard that Williams gives her. Riz Ahmed, meanwhile, is unable to drown out the flaws in his part: The “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” supporting actor mimics a kind of manic Elon Musk (or, depending on the day: simply Elon music). But the hooky characterization of his role and the clichéd lines of text that he has to utter put Ahmed in a kind of acting shackles. And you shouldn’t start with the logic holes regarding the symbiosis-or-not-symbiosis between Eddie Brock and the alien symbiote Venom by which he is “infected” if you still want to have fun with this film have. Because while catchphrases in the dialogue suggest a strong character arc, the scenes between the various turning points usually raise the question: And how did this change of heart come about? At least Hardy cuts a solid figure in all of this – even if he becomes a plaything of the somewhat indecisive direction: Hardy demonstrates great slapstick timing several times, while the lighting dramaturgy, editing sequence and sound design speak a dramatic to horror-like language. And Hardy often looks frighteningly sickly when “Zombieland” director Ruben Fleischer loosens his tone. Because “Venom” is staged aesthetically but coherently and functionally solid, there are no such violent, stylistic breaks as in “Justice League” or “Suicide Squad”.

And in the middle of this indecisive, full-of-holes film, there’s suddenly a chase scene that’s really well done and, for example, effortlessly wipes the floor with everything that the “Deadpool” films or the DC film universe have to offer in terms of action . Eddie Brock flees on his motorcycle from henchmen of the opaque corporate tycoon Carlton Drake, which Ruben Fleischer captures as a robust, rattling action passage full of haptic stunts and effects: In the night-time atmosphere of San Francisco, cars crash with force into other cars, street lights and other obstacles, and Eddie Brock jumps and curves spectacularly through the hilly city terrain on his two-wheeler. The real stunt work is imaginatively complemented by Venom’s digitally realized super abilities: Venom becomes an oversized protective shield, grabs onto poles or lanterns to enable tighter turns, or becomes a catapult to race across the streets at even greater speed. The gimmicks are so high that this becomes unmistakably a “Venom” chase, which also supports the plot by driving the otherwise unclear interaction between Eddie and the symbiote, while at the same time restrained enough to keep the focus on the Stunts lies.

As “Venom,” Eddie and his symbiote are unbeatable.

Another constant plus point is Ludwig Göransson’s score. The composer, who already impressed with his film music for “Black Panther,” accompanies “Venom” with loud, crashing, detached and partly atonal background music that, in its power and cool unpredictability, sounds as if it were the metallic soundtrack to “The Return of the First Avenger” owned by horror and sci-fi legend John Carpenter. The fact that the spooky elements are loud, but ultimately pinch when it comes to the nitty-gritty remains frustrating – Sony shot itself in the foot when it decided to clearly aim for a large audience. Likewise, some exposition scenes are jarring, explaining things that need no explanation – soliloquies along the lines of “What was my plan again?” are ridiculous and should have made room for other material that advances the story. What is particularly shameful is that these passages are shown in the 3D version with almost no depth effect and are therefore suspected of being the results of the short-term reshoot. It would have been better to put resources into the action finale, which consists of blurry close-ups of half-baked digital tricks.

Conclusion: “Venom” is told quickly and, even as an obviously fragmented film, still has more narrative coherence than disasters like “Justice League” or “The Dark Tower”. Of course, that’s not a hurdle you want to measure the start of your $100 million franchise against, but it should at least reassure fans of the comic book and/or Tom Hardy that “Venom” entertains in scenes.

“Venom” can be seen in USA cinemas nationwide from October 3rd – even in weak 3D!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top