Jösses vilken gojja. Man kan sannerligen konstatera att "yours truly" inte synkar med James Gunns humor och blanding av tonaliteter, speciellt i hans senaste alster.
Jag är oftast inte intresserad av den tråkige Stålmannen som är omöjlig att döda. Det enda som dödas i hans filmer är alla former av "stakes". Men med det sagt har jag ändå koll på vad han står för. Här har vi en film som på ytan är en film om "stålis", men som under ytan är något annat. Glöm hjärta, uppriktighet och patos.
Jag tog mig an filmen för jag ville se vad Gunn fått Nathan Fillion att gå med på den gång. Kunde vara kul tänkte jag, men Fillion är en av många otroligt tråkiga element i denna film.
Nej! Jag ids inte skriva mer om denna skitfilm så jag citerar istället några recensenter jag följer. De sammanfattar vad jag kände i magen rörande filmen...
Sam Van Hallgren (Letterboxd):
"Zero stars, an abomination.
This was like watching that sadistic neighbor kid from Toy Story steal, dismember, and torture your most beloved childhood toy.
And not just dismember and torture, but make your toy behave in ways that were not only wrong and unsettlingly perverse, but in ways that felt counter to their very essence.
Placing Superman in a geopolitically complex world is probably a fool’s errand (in addition to being No Fun At All), but when doing so requires us to believe that Supes/Clark - whose most underrated superpower is his cleverness - is a political nitwit (and defensive and shouty to boot), well, you lost me in act one.
It’s also clear that James Gunn is not for me. His sense of humor is of the Nothing is Sacred kind. But, sorry, Superman is sacred. Gunn gestures at Superman’s iconographic power, but he lacks the reverence.
Or, if I’m being generous, I’d say that I guess there can be all kinds of Superman movies and I just hated this one."
Josh Larsen (Larsen On Film):
"Superman, the character, is corny, earnest, and kind. Superman—as written and directed by James Gunn—is “cool,” callous, and cruel. It’s an irreconcilable difference the movie cannot overcome.
You may not notice this at first. In David Corenswet, the film has a likably handsome face in the traditional Superman mode, with a gee-whiz temperament to match. (Corenswet doesn’t use the word “swell,” as Christopher Reeve did in 1978’s Superman, but he does toss off a “golly” here and there.) And Gunn, veteran of all three Guardians of the Galaxy films, employs peppy punk songs and bright, primary colors (the latter likely to distinguish this installment from the grimly gray Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice). But this is also a Superman film that includes a lethally “comedic” game of Russian roulette; an alien baby held hostage in a black-site prison; a robot repeatedly stabbing itself in the head; and Krypto the Superdog forced to run endlessly on a treadmill in pursuit of digital squirrels. (After all the animal torture in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, I’m not sure what Gunn has against pets.)
Let’s consider one Superman sequence in particular. After Lex Luthor (Nicholas Hoult, sweating in an underwritten take on the villain) detains Superman and takes him to the aforementioned torture site, Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan) teams up with superhero Mr. Terrific (Edi Gathegi) to rescue him. Arriving to face a squadron of mercenaries, Mr. Terrific unleashes a protective “T-Sphere” around Lois while he uses a variety of proprietary projectiles to take out the bad guys. Gunn and cinematographer Henry Braham enclose us in the sphere with Lois, employing an extended, swerving, single take to match her perspective as the action swirls around her. Add Noah & The Whale’s bopping “5 Years Time” to the soundtrack (“Fun! Fun! Fun!”) and it’s almost as if Lois is having her own IMAX movie experience. When the carnage is over and the bubble pops, she—and we—are clearly meant to be wowed, only able to utter an admiring “Holy shit!” as we gaze upon the bodies (some dead?) strewn about. Killing is rarely as clever as it is in a James Gunn film.
Like Corenswet, Brosnahan seems fully capable of anchoring a decent Superman movie. But aside from an early, extended conversation sequence, which means to bring us up to speed on their entire relationship history and dynamics in one scene, they’re not onscreen together much. Gunn’s strategic decision to begin this Superman installment in media res is a smart one, given how many iterations we’ve already had, but the movie still lacks the emotional and character context necessary to make us feel as if any of this is worth our investment.
Indeed, Gunn’s Metropolis hardly seems worth saving, given the the jokey violence, petrified pets, bullied women (poor Sara Sampaio has to endure endless humiliations as Luthor’s girlfriend), and blowhard superheroes (Nathan Fillion also appears as a one-note Guy Gardner/Green Lantern). By the movie’s merciful end, you wonder what a nice guy like Superman is doing in a mean place like this."
Betyg: 1-/5
Som du säger, det blir såklart problematiskt om James Gunns stil och humor inte passar. Jag lät mig emellertid underhållas :)
SvaraRaderaSmaken är ju delad, men det är aldrig helt bekvämt att dö på samma kulle som Larsen och Van Hallgren.
SvaraRadera