MovieChat Forums > Morbius (2022) Discussion > Not totally unwatchable

Not totally unwatchable


Don’t believe the lies being thrown at “Morbius”. The film is bound to be a new classic, Jared Leto named sexiest vampire-man alive, the kills in this movie bound to set a new standard for action, and “The Batman” will only be able to look on in wonder at just how impressive Sony-Marvel “Batman” truly is.

Now that April Fools Day is out of the way (I can only hope Sony-Marvel at least had this much sense of humor when, finally, deciding on a release date for this), i’ll be honest. This is not godawful, yet it will probably succumb to hyperbole anyway just for being a superhero film. However, what it truly lacks is a strong guiding hand.

Leto is actually pretty good here as Michael Morbius, a doctor diagnosed with a rare blood disease as a child. On a trip to Costa Rica, he figures out that using the DNA from vampire bats is enough to reverse the disease, but only for 6 hours and that window seems to close with each new dose. Another problem: he now has a thirst for human blood.

As “Jekyll and Hyde” stories go, this one at least starts out compelling. Leto first appears pale and gaunt, a prisoner in his own body desperate for any sign of hope. Matt Smith plays his adoptive brother Milo, the younger brother Michael met in hospital and is very protective of, making a cure not just important for himself but for Milo too.

The experiment is also cheesy fun. Of course after Michael injects himself with DNA, he grows fangs and claws and can fly and hang from ceilings. He gains super strength and speed and his facial features resemble that of a bat.

Just what’s up with the lack of blood? As Morbius starts to feel the need to attack his prey, director Daniel Espinosa only films the kills from a great distance away or he cuts away from them entirely. Packaged blood looks more like Italian ice here and wounds never really gush or look that gorey. The film is PG-13 gutlessness as its worst.

The fights also never become anything special. At a certain point Milo uses the bat DNA as well and he becomes the villain and they fight some. Just Espinosa favors a very slo-mo, CGI heavy style that turns them all very incomprehensible. All I could see at certain points were characters, presumably moving fast, but covered by speed lines.

The conflict faced by the two brothers really could have used some more complexity. It’s clear Michael kills, but feels guilt about it, while Milo, none at all. But “Morbius” never seems interested in looking at the morality of Michael’s decision-making or how Milo loses his so easily. It’s a bland movie, simply padded out by adding supporting characters played by Adria Ajorna (Michael’s assistant), Al Madrigal and Tyrese Gibson as two homicide detectives. Neither of the three get much to do.

In the end, the film has a moody grimness but feels even less focused than “Venom”. That went the dark comedy route. It wasn’t good but at least had a direction. “Morbius” isn’t really horror and isn’t really thriller. It’s just bland and bloodless.

reply

Thanks for the review.

reply

Yes, bland and bloodless (well, perhaps not literally bloodless - it is a vampire film). Not good, not bad, no hint of originality, nothing wrong with the cast but unfortunately nothing to particularly recommend it. Perhaps a competent origin story is the best you can claim for it.

reply

It is generic. But so are most of the Marvel films. You either like that stuff or you don't.

Having said that, I don't get all the hate for this film. It was plenty decent and watchable even if "more of the same."

I felt no different after watching this film than I did Iron Man 3, Ant Man and the Wasp or Thor Ragnarok. As examples.

And as one who doesn't read spoilers ahead of the time, I was entertained and surprised at the post credit scenes.

reply

But "Morbius" is the first movie and origin in a potential franchise, not the second or third. How did you feel in comparison to Iron Man 1, Ant-man, Thor, Captain America 1, The Batman, etc.?

reply

Honestly, the first Iron Man is the only one that stands out. The others were along the same lines as Morbius for me. I mean, if I rated the films maybe Thor I comes out 7.9 and Morbius 7.4 and that kind of thing. So it's not to say the others might be "better" than Morbius, it's just that they don't outshine enough (if at all) to be worth noting.

As I said before, Morbius is generic, but I thought it was ok. Sure it doesn't blow me away, but I've seen many franchises that start on a high note and then every sequel afterward fails to live up to the original. So in this case maybe it's a good thing? The next will build and move upward? Here's hoping.

Regardless, I don't get the hate for this film. To each his/her own of course, but it's not a bad film -- provided one is into the comic book films. I think it has more to do with this particular character not as well known or charismatic as a Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, etc.

reply

Thanks

reply