Did my film display simply take a Prozac?
Watching the brand new “Superman” reboot starring David Corenswet, which hit theaters this weekend, I noticed the franchise’s years-long despair lastly vanish.
In James Gunn’s cheery movie, the colours had been “Wizard of Oz” brilliant as a substitute of ugly grayscale. The performances had been upbeat reasonably than brooding and indignant. And the story was — am I dreaming? — truly enjoyable.
The shift was stark. As a result of DC Comics movies, and actually most films within the superhero style for greater than a decade, have been as pleasant as algebra.
They warped into interminable Debbie Downers after — oh, the nerds are gonna protest at my condominium for this one — Christopher Nolan’s “Dark Knight” trilogy.
Sorry, dweebs. The gloom-and-doom comedian ebook reinvention is solely the fault of the director of “Inception.” He did it.
Bear in mind “Batman Begins,” “The Dark Knight” and “The Dark Knight Rises”? The 2008-2012 collection through which Gotham regarded like a down-and-out Chicago and the villains had been reconceived as a collection of evil terrorists?
The place Heath Ledger murdered a person in chilly blood on a grainy video feed and, on the uncommon events daylight was proven, it was at all times cloudy exterior?
Those through which Christian Bale put his physique by hell? Nicely, I suppose that’s each Christian Bale film.
That trio made a lot cash and acquired a lot acclaim, everyone had no alternative however to tear them off.
Nolan’s films, that are superb when taken on their very own, undeniably had a rotten impact on what got here subsequent.
Assume again. Superheroes was once quirky and galvanizing.
We’d watch Adam West hilariously take a look at the boundaries of a grey shirt and Tim Burton doll up Danny DeVito as a penguin. Tobey Maguire’s “Spider-Man” was in regards to the can-do spirit of New Yorkers. And the aughts “X-Men” flicks had been campy. Alan Cumming performed a disappearing frog.
Then the post-Nolan period unleashed a medieval murk and cathedral-like bombast. The following films had been deafening and weighty. They punched us within the face with conceited sludge.
First got here Hollywood masochist Zack Snyder’s “Man of Steel” and “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” — dour slogs that had all of the appeal of a puddle of Manhattan rubbish water.
Henry Cavill’s Clark Kent regarded completely satisfied as Mr. T.
And the frowns weren’t restricted to Superman.
Ben Affleck performed Batman. Want I say extra?
Some flicks had been downright upsetting. After Heath Ledger’s Oscar-winning efficiency in “The Dark Knight,” the Joker advanced into some kind of pretentious King Lear.
The funereal first standalone movie for the character, “Joker,” starring that piece of labor Joaquin Phoenix was modeled after “Taxi Driver” for Pete’s sake! The man was a disturbed serial killer.
Even “Aquaman” with Jason Momoa was bizarrely severe for a story a few combating mermaid. Gal Gadot’s “Wonder Woman” was a few World Battle I German mustard gasoline.
What about Marvel? True, the MCU isn’t as sooty and downcast as DC tends to be.
However ever since Nolan’s human Batman, there was an obsession at Marvel with grounding the tales of Spidey, Iron Man, Physician Unusual and the remainder within the acquainted actual world. There’s not a lot fashion to them. They by no means dazzle. They’re run-of-the-mill motion films with cute costumes. Money-checking A-Listers working round Atlanta.
Is Gunn’s “Superman” the beginning of an optimistic new period of letting comedian books be comedian books? Its home field workplace is on monitor to a robust $120 million begin, so persons are shopping for what he’s promoting.
And Gunn is now answerable for DC alongside Peter Safran. His imaginative and prescient is king.
Let’s hope the change sticks.
Seventeen years of “The Dark Knight” is a lot.
I’m prepared for some sunshine.
