[ad_1]
[Cettehistoirecontientdesspoilerspour[Thisstorycontainsspoilersfor[Cettehistoirecontientdesspoilerspour[ThisstorycontainsspoilersforVenom]
This weekend, Sony launches its own cinematic world with Ruben Fleischer. Venom. Although the film makes a good performance during the box office opening weekend, critics have been less than approve. The general consensus from the journals for Venom is that the film is a sound mess, going from drama, horror and comedy from one scene to another. This assessment of the tone is true, but I am still not convinced that it is a bad film and especially a bad adaptation of the cartoon character who made his debut in 1988.
We are at an interesting time in the superhero cinema. There are more capes, costumes and cinematographic worlds than ever, and despite the frequency with which "superhero fatigue" is launched, superhero / villain movies do not arrive any time soon. One of the most interesting conversations about the overabundance of comic adaptation is the tone. Although Marvel Studios' Marvel Cinematic Universe has set some expectations for the tone of these films, which vary even within their franchises, there is an interesting discussion about the superhero movies that populated the cinemas before 2008 and the reception of those who have directed the Marvel method clearly, sometimes intentionally and sometimes not.
There is a scene in Venom Tom Hardy's Eddie Brock walks into a fancy restaurant looking for his former fiancée, Anne (Michelle Williams). He has recently become involved with the symbiote and still does not know exactly what is happening to him. He sweats profusely, trembling like a junkie and overcome with an insatiable hunger. He takes the food from customers' plates, stuffs it in his mouth and spits it out. "It's dead," says Brock with disgust. He grabs faces, resisting the urge to bite his head. His quest for food eventually ends with his climb into a lobster tank, grabbing one of the big shellfish and biting him wildly. Both a bodily nightmare and a farce, it is perhaps the exact moment when the audience finds themselves completely upset by the movie or totally engaged. For me, it was the last. Tom Hardy is doing everything possible for this absurd moment, using his character actor abilities to get rid of the preconceptions of an influential Hollywood man, in a way that Nicholas Cage, Robin Williams and Jim Carrey had done before them. .
While the aforementioned scene, as well as several other moments sure to be taken out of context and undermined as memes, have brought some to compare Venom to the carpet of Halle Berry Catwoman (2004), the association has the impression of touching the most hyperbolic. Catwoman, one of the worst comics films of the 2000s, seemed to work with a total misunderstanding of the strengths of its main actresses and sources. VenomAlthough the viewers feel personally, the director is perfectly in tune with Hardy's ability to produce cadences and tics that contribute to creating a human being endearing, a foot of reality. Aditionellement, Venom manages to exploit the appearances of the character's comics mini-series in a way that goes beyond Easter eggs and creature creations.
There is a common misconception that Venom is a tough guy. Perhaps because of its design, or because it has been tattooed on the bodies of those who evoke real-life characters, there is often a belief that Venom is a character related to the Punisher. But Venom has always been the tonal mess of a character. It is a monster born of suicidal urges that kills the guilty in cold blood for the pleasure. But he is also a monster who maintains a complete conversation with himself, who uses prolix language worthy of journalism, sings while swaying and eats chocolate to satiate his desires for human flesh. There is a feeling in a number of critics for Venom that the film should have gone for seriousness or comedy, but the truth is that Venom, during most of his defining appearances in the 90s, was never framed. It's a strange character. That does not mean that Venom The film's adherence to the cartoon character's personality and simplistic plot – perhaps one of the simplest superhero movies in recent memory – are factors that do not easily meet the expectations of the characters. modern superheroes movies. Venom does not elevate the source of the 90s, what Donny Cates, author of comics, does in the most recent and exceptional volume, Venom. But Fleischer's film turns the appearances of the character into titles like Venom: deadly protector (1993), Venom: the madness (1993), Venom: Sinner takes everything (1995), and Venom: hunger (1996) in a film as transparent as the medium can allow it.
Marvel Studios has done a fantastic job creating a space where superhero movies can interest more than comic readers, but also the general public. The Disney-owned studio is often praised by fans and critics for its fidelity to the source material, but the truth is that it has made so many changes to the source material and characters of their characters in order to translate the properties on screen like no matter who. So, although a Venom movie separated from Spider-Man may seem like an unforgivable sin for some, it's no less accurate than Thor's MCU's having no connection with the Earth before 2011 , or that Hank Pym has nothing to do with creating Ultron, or Spider. -Man's relying on Stark technology early in his career. The MCU's films contain even more radical differences compared to the source material, especially with respect to the often comical tonalities of properties such as Thor, The ant man, and Guardians of the Galaxy. The MCU has made Raganarok a joke, which seems far more radical than anything Sony plans to do with its Spider-Verse. Yet, the MCU succeeds because it creates a sense of information through the uniform tones and precise costumes of its comics. The MCU makes it easy to be a fan of Marvel without having ever read the source material, while making it easy for those who have read the source material to add, because it is close enough and most often it works. It works without alienating.
On the other hand, there are universes like Fox's. X Men series of movies and movies of Warner Bros. DC, it does not make things easy. Fox's X movies, including Logan and dead Pool, deviate perhaps most significantly in the effort not only to give the limited perspective of his filmmaker (this is not necessarily a bad thing), but also to make sense of the quagmire of the continuity of X-Men. The release of the trailer Dark Phoenix raised another interesting debate on the tone, as viewers and bloggers noticed that it seemed boring or more like, and that it was noticeably lacking in action or comedy. If some people think that fans only want to come back to X-Men, it's not that easy. X Men takes a fragmented approach to the source material, which is not necessarily interested in precision or even being positioned as a superhero movie. As a franchise, she does not even care about all the characters she understands. But these films, as a moral, invest in the evolutive but cyclical relationship between Charles Xavier and Magneto, the X Men The films have largely deserved their less explosive and humorous tones, even if they do not always create pleasant moments for the public in the spirit of the MCU. Take the best X-movie movie, Logan for example. This is not an exact adaptation in terms of intrigue or tone to comics, not even Old Man Logan, through which part of his aesthetic has been borrowed. He is a Westerner with mutants interested in loss and trauma that do not let the viewer smile when credits arrive. But it works, because although Logan is radically different from previous X-Men movies, it is consistent as a singular movie, which suits the story of the character's comic book.
Christopher Nolan took a similar approach to telling his own story for his Dark Knight trilogy, but with much greater success than Fox's films. Nolan saw his trilogy as a criminal epic in the mind of Michael Mann rather than that of superhero movies. But the rocky and somewhat rooted tone suits Batman, or at least the modern perception of it by Post-Frank Miller, in a way easier to consume and celebrate than X-Men, which has long been part of weird comics. Perhaps it is possible to mix serious themes and the more zany aspects of the comic cannon. This is what DC tried to do. Take Zack Snyder's movies Steel man (2013) and Batman v Superman: The Dawn of Justice (2016), who raised complaints about a dark tone, a dark Superman and a Batman who kills. Although there is a precedent for all these things in the canon of comics, they are not at the forefront of general perceptions about these characters. Even the famous "Martha" moment, which has become the source of bad jokes on the Internet, finds its foundation in comics and in the ability of two men to see themselves as human beings because of their mothers. Despite the fact that some of these less familiar and less popular aspects of the characters have been used to enhance the story told and present a holistic view of the story of Batman and Superman, a consensus has emerged on the fact that Snyder did not understand the character. But the truth is that he did it. That we liked the way he understood them and assembled their various contradictory elements is a different question. And that brings us back to the question of Venom.
It may be acceptable to accept that superhero films can be alienating without being bad, that they can express the contradictions of tone and character in a way that is rewarding, and to understand that Superhero or comic book label does not in itself mean your sits comfortably with our most repeated images of these characters. Venom Although it is not invulnerable to criticism, it is arguable that many of the hyperbolic responses to the film are based on the many things the film has had during its adaptation, as crazy and chaotic as they may be. Each genre has survived on a variety of tones, some of which have been for some members of the public and others not. Being a fan of western does not mean that Diligence (1939) a handful of dollars (1964), and The Hateful Eight (2015) works for all fans of the genre, but that does not mean that one of them is bad.
Or take a slightly less prestigious genre like horror and entries like Cat people (1942) Beyond (1986) and He comes at night (2017) and you will find among the horror fans a variety of opinions, even disagreements about what constitutes horror. However, when it comes to superhero movies, even if we recognize their ability to evolve into different genres, we still expect some kind of generalized consistency that suggests that each entry is made for each fan of the genre. The time may have come to give up that and accept a good movie of superheroes, that's Superman from Christopher Reeve who catches Lois Lane from a helicopter, and that's also the fact Tom Hardy's Venom breaks his mouth. If anything, it is certain to lead to a lot more variety.
[ad_2]
Source link
