by Jack Grimme, Contributing Writer
Sony’s most recent Spider-Man adjacent story, Kraven the Hunter,released alongside reports that it would be the final entry in the studio’s connected universe. Much of the world met the news with rapturous applause as the greedy tyrant’s empire went out with a whimper. Admittedly, I have come to the defense of several of the projects. Their partnership with Marvel Studios gave us the Tom Holland trilogy, which are worthy entries in the character’s canon; the Venom films have their flaws, but also an undercurrent of charm that consistently endears the series to me and many others; the Spider-Verse series, while not directly related to their continuous story, proves that Sony has access to competent, invested storytellers who can do the character justice. However, Sony’s standalone releases show the real crack in the foundation of their strategy. Morbius and Madame Web were universally panned films that proved these stories would struggle to exist agnostic of the character at the heart of the franchise. The films were so unsuccessful that Bad Bunny and Donald Glover covertly severed ties with the studio, after being announced to lead El Muerto and Hypno-Hustler respectively. Instead of breathing life into the dying venture, it seems that Kraven the Hunter only succeeds in validating the aforementioned stars’ decisions to part ways.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson pilots the project as Sergei, the prodigal son of the Kravinoff family and the titular hunter. Taylor-Johnson abandons his father’s dynasty in favor of a mercenary career spent hunting down criminals. This complex relationship with his domineering father (Russell Crowe), coupled with his penchant for vengeance and vigilante justice, builds to a life-or-death battle with a rival gang and increasingly strained familiar bonds. Does this story resemble anything that the character has done in his comic book appearances? Absolutely not. However, it is important to not judge the release merely by its adherence to its source material. Sometimes the jump to the big screen offers new opportunities to dig deep and find new avenues to pick apart the character’s deeper motives. Unfortunately, that is not the case here.
Kraven’s most damning flaw is that it is terribly boring and bland. The first eight or so minutes offer some signs of life, with an interesting escapade through a prison that sets up the characters purpose and identity. My main suggestion for future viewers is to enjoy that intro while you can, because even though it isn’t anything truly groundbreaking, it is by far the most enticing part of the entire release. The plot of this film feels like the studio had an artificial intelligence build the framework for a Mad Libs game about an antihero, and then tasked the writer with filling in the blanks by throwing darts at Spider-Man’s wikipedia page. There are deep-cut characters like Calypso (Ariana DeBose), the Chameleon (the first villain Spider-Man ever fought in his debut issue, played here by Fred Hechinger), the Foreigner (Christopher Abbott), and several more. These characters are borderline unrecognizable from their comic counterparts. And again, that isn’t inherently a flaw. However, it certainly becomes one when you completely fail to add any nuance, life, or purpose to the characters.
The plot is unbearably bland with virtually no surprises and no real effort to keep the audience engaged. Kraven himself is completely unlikable, not necessarily by fault of Taylor-Johnson, because he is typically quite charming. The dialogue, on the other hand, functions as a time machine to February, serving up haunting flashbacks to the nonsensical, cringeworthy words brought to life by Madame Web. The people we meet throughout this cinematic universe act less human than the actual supernatural beings, like Venom and his band of symbiote brethren.
Aside from the intro, there was only one other element that nearly drew me in. The family dynamic between Crowe, Taylor-Johnson, and Hechinger shows glimpses of modern commentary on toxic masculinity and male relationships. The overbearing patriarch determined on churning out carbon copies of himself, instead of letting his children find their own path forward, is an intriguing angle that could’ve added depth to Kraven’s characterization. Unfortunately, the film fails to do anything new with this idea. As many weak superhero projects do, it abandons meaningful exploration of deeper themes in favor of a climax built around two strong people punching each other really hard. The damage of unchecked masculinity is a concept that is undeniably relevant in a modern world. And it perfectly tracks with the character that is presented in the comics. Shockingly, I left the theater seeing a worthy path forward for the character and a new element worth exploring in future films. Which left me even more disappointed in the project that we received.
Unfortunately, I have come up short when trying to think of a single person who would benefit from seeing this film. Very few people are still invested in the overarching world being offered by Sony. And those who are would only leave this film with more loose threads and underdeveloped ideas that likely will never be touched on again. Even Madame Web had a certain absurdist lean to it that made it fun to sit through and laugh at. Kraven is certainly more gruesome than any other entry in the world to date, but the violence doesn’t serve the story in a meaningful way. If you want to watch people hurt each other in creative ways, there are a million films that you should go to before considering this one. Kraven the Hunter lacks any defining spice, identity, or purpose, and will tragically only live on as an inexplicable misstep in the ever-expanding Spider-Man canon.
Rating: Didn’t Like It
Kraven the Hunter is currently playing in theaters
You can read more from Jack Grimme, and follow him on Twitter, Instagram, and Letterboxd