Matt's Movie Musings: "Venom 3," "Juror #2" and one big blog of other October oddities

Also: You're laughing. "Joker 2" won't even get close to making more than "Morbius" and you're laughing. Also also: Could "The Substance" ... ACTUALLY get Oscar nominations?

How the hell is it the end of October already? How are there only two more months left in this year? How did this happen? Jo Koy bombing at the Golden Globes feels like it happened 17 years ago. Absurd – the linear progression of time must be held accountable for its crimes.

Anyways, it’s been a wild month – personally because I spent a long weekend in New York City (pardon me, that’s pronounced “NYEEW YORK CITAY!”) in loving tribute to the 157th best movie of the year, “Saturday Night.” There I saw burrata-topped pizza, Times Square, a Broadway show (“Stereophonic!” See it! It’s about a fictional band in the ‘70s that you might as well call Meetwood Flac!), multiple instances of sidewalk vomit, Stonewall and way too many wonderful-looking restaurants and shops. I loved it all – most of all, seeing my good friend get married in a park on a gorgeous NYC day while total strangers watched on and applauded, because sometimes the world is a beautiful and lovely place. I’m sure that worldview will survive November!

Before, during and after all my tourist-ing, some stuff happened at the movies – so let’s talk about it! That’s right: It’s a WHOLE MONTH’S WORTH OF MUSINGS! Surely this will be a tight and concise read … but what else are you going to do? Would you REALLY rather doom-scroll on a social platform slowly becoming Reddit with the racism dial cranked up and somehow less legitimate advertising partners? Or risk watching TV and getting bombarded by 17 political ads in a row? Consider this sure-to-be-bloated blog a service.

“Venom 3” is neither box office poison, nor the antidote for superhero fatigue

And so ends one of the strangest modern major film trilogies. (Pardon me, “ends.” It speaks to the new superhero movie’s sloppiness that even it’s not sure if it’s bringing the franchise to a close or kickstarting it.)

“Venom” was born of a bad idea back in 2018, made badly but also made into a weird hit thanks to Tom Hardy’s gonzo lead performance and thanks to audiences’ eagerness for anything superhero-related back then. The second movie was an improvement, leaning into its supreme silliness, and in the process became the third highest grossing movie of 2021 … albeit at just over $200 million in that strange “post-COVID but still COVID” year. But thanks to that over-performance, the trade publications seemingly expected a big result for “Venom: The Last Dance” – at least that’s the vibe from the depressed headlines coming from its $51 million opening weekend, talking about disappointing results and panicking yet again about the fate of comic book movies (and therefore Hollywood as a a whole, because that’s all that the trades think matter).

This was more predictable than Aaron Rodgers’ New York Jets turning into a cayenne water-soaked clown car. Comic book movies, outside of the central brand figures, have struggled to connect to audiences this year. But also: “Let There Be Carnage” promised a showcase villain and a blockbuster at a time when audiences were hungry for big familiar spectacles to get them back to the movies again. “The Last Dance” promised … a goop horse? This third installment tried to go sentimental in its marketing campaign, pitching itself as a big finale bow – but despite its past popularity, this wasn’t a franchise general audiences really had an emotional attachment to. Even “Guardians of the Galaxy” – a much more beloved franchise with a much more heartfelt tone – struggled to parlay its "one last ride” hook into grander box office success for its third and final film. Sure, it did well – but thanks to strong word-of-mouth legs after an opening weekend that finished well under “Vol. 2.” The thing is, in an era of constant reboots, nostalgic un-retirements and multiverse resurrections, “The Last Dance” as a selling point rings pretty hollow to modern audiences.

But also: $50 million … is good? Like, I would take it. “Joker 2” certainly would too!

Maybe that total doesn’t do a ton of good for movie theaters – especially in a month where their other presumed blockbuster, “Joker: Folie a Deux,” collapsed through the floor worse than the 2024-25 Florida State Seminoles football team. But there’s no need for the trades to bring out the waah-mbulance for “Venom 3.” Sony – somehow emerging as the best major studio in this streaming era – generally doesn’t explode its movie budgets, and that stayed true with “The Last Dance,” costing a relatively sane $110 million. So with a $175 million worldwide opening weekend, “Venom” is more than halfway toward profitable – with no new action movie competition in sight until “Red One” on Nov. 15. And I think most audiences still aren’t sure that’s an actual movie.

So there’s no need for anyone to be upset about the “Venom: The Last Dance” box office. Save that anger for how not-good the movie is.

The burning clown car that was “Joker: Folie a Deux”

Here’s a shocking statement: “Joker: Folie a Deux” will be out of all my local theaters by this coming weekend. That’s less than a month on the big screen in Milwaukee. That’s a shorter lifespan than Green Bay Packers field goal kickers.

Coming off making $335 million in 2019, “Folie a Deux” currently sits at just a little more than $57 million – and it’s not going to get better than that considering it’s already plummeted out of the top ten with less than a million gathered last weekend. It’d be more tragic if it wasn’t totally deserved.

So what do we learn from this abysmal showing? For one, stop giving Todd Phillips money to make sequels. Between the “Hangover” follow-ups and now this, it’s clear he hates making them for audiences – and what do you know, the feeling is mutual! Maybe if he turned that loathing into something lively on screen, that attitude would be interesting, and as cool and “punk” as his defenders want to argue – but that hasn’t been the case three times now.

Second: Remember when I said Sony was smart and kept their budgets in check? Yeah … Warner Bros. didn’t do that. The original “Joker” cost a tight $55 million (and looked tremendous). This sequel? Almost $200 million. All that for a movie that mostly takes place in a few crummy-looking buildings. If the “Joker” sequel had just bumped its cost up a little rather than FOUR TIMES the original, it’d be much closer to breaking even with just over $200 million worldwide at the box office. Instead, it’s a calamity.

Third, and maybe most important of all: The bombs are all nuclear these days.

Back in the day, if your big movie had a rough opening weekend, you could still often leg out something resembling a respectable total. Because, hey, people gotta see something, right? But with the death of the casual “seeing a movie to see a movie” crowd, if your movie has a stink about you nowadays, it’s indeed dead – and fast. Audiences were apparently refunding tickets over its opening weekend, dropping its expected first tally below $40 million – and with no casual audiences to pick up the slack then or now. This is happening a lot more regularly now to these big wannabe superhero blockbusters – “Shazam 2,” “Quantumania,” “The Flash,” “The Marvels” – and will probably only continue as the target audiences feel disappointed and general audiences feel more alienated from their homework-intensive interconnected worlds of increasingly minor characters. Say what you will about “Argylle,” it multiplied better than all of those above movies.

Here’s the vicious punchline, though: Even with its terrible box office performance, “Joker 2” has performed better than all but four original movies this year (“Longlegs,” “Civil War,” “The Beekeeper” and “IF”). If we go worldwide, not one original English-language feature has done better. And this is why we keep getting IP and sequels: Even if you collapse through the floor, that floor is still higher in most cases than an original movie considering modern audiences. And I thought “Folie a Deux” was a cruel joke.

Did you know there’s a new Clint Eastwood new movie out this weekend? Warner Bros. apparently hopes you don’t

About a month ago, Warner Bros. released a trailer for a new Clint Eastwood movie, “Juror #2,” and my nightmares had became cinematic reality. No, that’s not a burn on Clint Eastwood; literally my most OCD trait is being concerned I’ve accidentally hit somebody with my car … and “Juror #2” is all about a guy (Nicholas Hoult) sweatily serving on the jury for a hit-and-run he unknowingly committed.

Little did I know, though, that “Juror #2” would ACTUALLY turn into a nightmare – a nightmare for the future of cinema. Because despite a really good buzzy trailer (between this, “The Mule” and “American Sniper,” whoever cuts Clint’s trailers ACTUALLY deserves to be the head of WB) and despite critics saying the movie’s pretty good, David Zaslav is burying the movie this weekend in maybe 50 screens nationwide. Yes, 50 – and no, this isn’t a limited opening for a gradual wide release. This could possibly be it. For comparison’s sake, there’s a new movie called “The Carpenter” about Jesus Christ teaching MMA getting a wider release this weekend than a new Clint Eastwood movie – maybe his last.

Now I could make devil’s advocate arguments for this decision. That adult dramas generally struggle in theaters these days, much less original ones. That Hoult, Toni Collette, J.K. Simmons and Zoey Deutch aren’t particularly box office draws – and that Clint Eastwood’s last movie, “Cry Macho” starring himself, barely made $10 million back in 2021. (I’d say you forgot “Cry Macho” existed, but that implies you knew it existed in the first place.)

But nah. Zaslav’s Warner Bros. has not earned the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, adult dramas struggle in theaters – but in many ways, it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, as studios continue to train audiences to think of adult dramatic material as not worthy of the big screen. Sure, it’s anecdotal, but I’ve now seen full audiences for “Wolfs” and “Conclave” – in the middle of a Packers Sunday in Wisconsin, at that. There’s still an audience; they just need the movies and the campaigns to make them aware they exist. But instead of building that audience back up and making the next “Oppenheimer,” “Where the Crawdads Sing,” “The Boys in the Boat” or “It Ends with Us,” we’re shunting dramas to streaming and stretching every old successful film drama into an overqualified eight-part mini-series. Or, in the case of “Juror #2,” a somehow worse middle ground.

Most notably, though, we are just a decade removed from “American Sniper” ranking as the highest grossing domestic release of the year – more than “Hunger Games,” “Guardians of the Galaxy,” Captain America and “The Hobbit.” We’re barely more than five years removed from “The Mule” making more money ($103 million) than every comic book movie released this year not named “Deadpool & Wolverine.” Sure, his last two movies underperformed – but “Richard Jewell” was a spottily-received, star-devoid project about a sidenote of a historical figure and “Cry Macho” was a character piece released with no marketing amidst COVID, simultaneously dropped on Max.

I’d say if you don’t know how to sell “Clint Eastwood’s potential last movie,” you shouldn’t be in the business of selling movies – but judging by the trailer, they DID know how to sell “Juror #2." They just didn’t WANT to. And there’s the special Zaslav touch. The man’s running a film distributor that regularly doesn’t believe in distributing films; he’s now done it to Clint Eastwood, and he did it to the Looney Tunes and Batgirl before. If those notable names can be disregarded this way, who’s safe?

Want to make a Warner Bros. movie? I hope you feel lucky, punk. Make a film there at your own peril.

A blitz of additional box office buzz

Oh boy, wow, I meant those digs in the intro about going long as a joke, but here we are. Let’s whip through some quick other box office takes:

• To pour some salt on “Joker’s” wounds, a different clown’s killing it this month instead. I don’t like these unpleasant meat-grinder movies – they’re literally overkill – but I can’t argue against “Terrifier” and its remarkable financial success, with the third installment now topping $45 million, historic for an unrated movie. It’s the John Wick of horror, growing from cult sensation to organically-grown franchise – almost refreshing in this era of “this is part one of a five-part expanded universe franchise and you’re gonna like it, dammit!” For its scrappy origins, though, it actually shares a lot with blockbusters: It’s an event movie, a spectacle with audiences going for the stunt and the status of surviving the vicious gory onslaught. Hey, at least they’re going.

• $6.8 million isn’t “sexy,” but it’s nice to see for “Conclave” – a pope-litical drama, aka not exactly box office manna from heaven. It’s a really compelling and solid thriller for adults, handsomely shot and sturdily performed, so hopefully it keeps holding over the weekends and shows Zaslav how it’s done. Plus: a well-done drama that’s ALSO a box office hit? That’s the kind of crowd-pleaser narrative that could put it above “Anora” as a Best Picture frontrunner – though Sean Baker’s latest is doing quite well for itself in limited, scoring some of the highest per-screen box office averages this side of the pandemic and growing its buzz as it grows its theater count. Between this and “Longlegs,” “Kirkland-brand A24” Neon is giving the real deal a run for its money – and good. Nice to see the cult of A24 discovering there’s other indie and genre movie riches to be found even without the designer label.

• Apologies where they’re due: I spoke too soon on “Speak No Evil.” Not on its quality – I still think it’s an empty and edgeless echo of its original – but after poking fun at its ad campaign and meh opening weekend, the James McAvoy thriller has now made a fully respectable $36 million at the box office. Add in another $39 million overseas, and the $15 million Universal release is yet another horror success for the year – never mind how much the trades want to hype “horror fatigue.” And while I’m eating crow …

“The Substance”: But really … an Oscar contender?

Earlier this year, I made fun of Oscar prognosticators for talking about “The Substance” as a potential awards player – less because I thought the film wasn’t worthy and more because it seemed like they didn’t know how to discuss a movie’s merits beyond the horserace of it all. And also: Come on, I know the Academy’s gotten younger and hipper, but it’s still an unapologetic genre movie with a Monstro Elisasue that goopily births a bonus detachable boob out of its body.

But, uh … I think I need to talk about “The Substance” as a potential awards player.

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I really think “The Substance” is a lock for at least one nomination come late January: Best Makeup/Hair, for the aforementioned Monster Elisasue and then some. Not only are the practical effects memorably gnarly, but this category is one of the few places where the Academy allows itself to get wild. Never forget “Suicide Squad” not only got a nomination here, but won. It’s not a question of if “The Substance” will get this nomination, but which element or scene will they dare show during the ceremony.

Now I REALLY can’t believe I’m saying this, but with the help of its impressive box office reception (fun fact: “The Substance” will have a longer theatrical run near me than “Joker 2”), I think it gets one more nomination too. Actors tend to be more predictable and obvious with their choices, so I think Demi Moore misses on Actress – but Best Original Screenplay seems (somehow) very plausible. It already won for it at Cannes, so there’s precedent to help make an unconventional choice feel less “scary” – and much like Makeup/Hair, the screenplay categories tend to make some bolder choices in terms of country of origin (“Anatomy of a Fall,” “The Worst Person in the World”) and genre (“Get Out,” “Ex Machina”). Plus, it’s a movie about Hollywood – Hollywood LOVES Hollywood! After frontrunners “The Brutalist,” “Anora” and “A Real Pain,” there’s plenty of room in Original Screenplay – and “The Substance” could genuinely fill it. (Though its surface is so shiny and slick, some voters might see it as an achievement in style over script.)

If the Academy really wants to give “The Substance” some bonus love, they could (and arguably should) give it a sound nomination as well. I can’t order shrimp again thanks in part to this movie’s sound design – and that’s gotta be worth something.

Christopher Nolan’s back, baybee!

Christopher Nolan’s back … well, in July 2026. The freshly crowned “Oppenheimer” director isn’t resting long, apparently back at work for a new movie reportedly starring Matt Damon and Tom Holland (who will also have a new Spider-Man coming out that month. I have a hard time believing we’ll get two Holland-led blockbusters in the same month, and considering Nolan rules that July week, I see Spidey swinging elsewhere. It’s not like Christmas didn’t work last time … )

Early reports also say that the movie is … an action movie about helicopter cops, partly inspired by a mostly forgotten ‘80s flick? Gotta say: 10/10, no notes. I love that Nolan, at the height of his fame, given the ultimate blank check after winning Best Picture with a WWII scientist biopic that almost made a billion dollars, may cash it on making a glorified B-movie about future sky cops.

Some people still want him to make a Bond movie – and those people should consider new hobbies. Much like wanting Jordan Peele to make a “Blade” movie, I cannot fathom, in this Hollywood era, wanting the few directors not only able to make original films, but to get audiences to see them, to get stuck in brand management mode for a franchise. Wanting to see what they can do with those franchises is like telling a great chef you’d love to see what he can do at a TGI Friday’s. Lots of people can make a Bond movie or a Blade movie; only one person can make a Christopher Nolan movie.

I don’t believe Netflix’s “Narnia” gambit

My “Hey, Does Netflix Actually Suck” choir of hecklers got a little louder this month, as rumblings came out that Daniel Craig and Rian Johnson are both mad at the Big Red Streaming Monolith for not giving “Glass Onion” (and probably the upcoming “Wake Up Dead Man”) proper theatrical releases. Listen, I’m not NOT going to let them into my anti-fan club … but if you want a theatrical release, maybe don’t sign a deal with the company that wants to murder the concept of theaters, entirely. Real “I never thought Oops! All Thoughtless Streaming Releases LLC would thoughtlessly release MY movie to streaming” vibes.

But that wasn’t all. Word also got out that Margot Robbie’s upcoming “Wuthering Heights” update turned down a big ol’ Scrooge McDuck pool of cash from Netflix in favor of a deal with a theatrical release. (A deal … with Warner Bros. DAMMIT, EVEN THIS WIN FEELS LIKE A LOSS!)

Huh, so HOW CONVENIENT that, amidst all these notable naysayers, suddenly there are reports that Greta Gerwig’s upcoming “Narnia” adaptation for the Big Red Streaming Monolith might get an IMAX release. HMMMM! To quote the great poet Maximillian Rockatansky, “That’s bait.” That’s Netflix throwing some chum in the water to lure big-ticket directors back into thinking they miiiiiiiiiight just give your project a theatrical spotlight … only to bail on that completely and drop your movie on the service with no marketing or fanfare, getting outperformed by the 19th season of “Virgin River” and a reality show about influencers having to live on an island without Wifi. Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos doubled-down just two weeks ago on theatrical releases being a waste, and the word from insiders says that their newly hired film head thinks similarly – so yeah, anyone thinking this is a sincere shift for Netflix probably should avoid any emails from Nigerian princes.