Hadn't heard it before but yeah I can see why people reacted. Kinda replaces everything good about the original with generic pop radio production. The plainest, least emotional vocals possible, too.

That said, it's wayyyy better than the slow, broody pop covers that dominated movie trailers for years. It's objectively good but subjectively one of the most boring, passionless covers I've ever chosen to listen to

It definitely sounded better to me in situ. On its own, it is pretty generic.

I had completely forgotten about the slow, broody pop cover trend and I really hope to again.

Fair enough, I didn't see the film. It's not a particularly bad cover, it's just very....corporate, I guess. Like boxes were deliberately checked during production. I have no idea how to describe what I mean lol

May we both forget broody pop covers soon.

I don't know if I agree with "objectively good". It definitely isn't bad, but its just... it's fine.

Objectively good as in the rhythm is stable, the instrumentation is harmonic, and it has a clean mix.

Like how this is an objectively good square but it's subjectively boring

I don't think it's corporate, I just think it sounds like one of thousands of YouTube covers. The "broody pop cover" rules have lots of options, but ultimately are going to sound like broody pop covers.

I think in a better film this would have just be a weird choice that most people ignore. In a film that already has a lot of issues to discuss, this is an easy one to point out.

As for the song itself, it's fine. I do wonder what the other 40 or so choices were. It seems weird to me that you could direct the scene without a song already in mind.