WONDER WOMAN - 2017

[AndyDursin]

Doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason now as to what gets embargoed and what doesn't. Used to be studios wanted good reviews to filter out to enhance word of mouth -- but now, it seems like they'd rather control "their message" by avoiding critic screenings until the last minute, regardless of the product. Another part is that these movies are tinkered with and re-edited so much up until the deadline, it's possible the movie wasn't fully completed until recently.

I hope the film is as great as advertised, and isn't a case of kool-aid drinking critics getting all amped because it's a female super-hero movie directed by a woman. We saw that last year with the absurdly positive reviews the lousy GHOSTBUSTERS generated ("73% fresh!"), where one review after another was geared to make a social statement about the cast instead of, you know, actually reviewing the tepid film that was on-screen. Needless to say, audiences did not share their abundant enthusiasm!

[AndyDursin]

Waiting for this to start. One thing I don't like about the Thursday shows (convenient as they are for me) is our local theater puts them on the smallest screens no matter what the film is 99% of the time.

[AndyDursin]

This one is solid -- it's fun, but it's also too long (mid-section really, really drags) and seems to miss a lot of obvious targets. The island opening is entirely disposable and never circles back to the main narrative, the "political whitewashing" in order to sell foreign tickets is a bit annoying, and the score is awful (but what else is new). On the plus side: Godot looks great, Chris Pine is alive and kicking, the duo have nice chemistry and the film is entirely more likeable than pretty much any DC film save the original Superman.

That said, it's strictly formula stuff and even though the supporting characters are amusing, there's no real payoff to them. Just because you have a character walk into a movie and say a couple of funny lines doesn't mean they're functional -- you have to do something with them (like Trevor's secretary, played by Lucy Davis), and the film doesn't do much on that end. It plays by the book and takes no chances -- it just does it better than most.

Have to give it a 3-star, 7.5/10 type of review. It's superior to the cookie-cutter Marvel movies and certainly entertaining, but it misses the "elite" level of the genre's best.

[Eric Paddon]

, the "political whitewashing" in order to sell foreign tickets is a bit annoying.

I pretty much figured that was why they decided to set this in World War I instead of World War II. The original classic WW with its layer of flag-waving is something today's filmmakers want to avoid at all costs, even with the "Good War" it seems so it becomes easier for them to set it in a war no one can say a good thing about.

I'm not going to go to a theater to see this. Maybe I'll see it on Blu-Ray.

[AndyDursin]

, the "political whitewashing" in order to sell foreign tickets is a bit annoying.

I pretty much figured that was why they decided to set this in World War I instead of World War II. The original classic WW with its layer of flag-waving is something today's filmmakers want to avoid at all costs, even with the "Good War" it seems so it becomes easier for them to set it in a war no one can say a good thing about.

I'm not going to go to a theater to see this. Maybe I'll see it on Blu-Ray.

Yeah and it's BS. I was surprised they even tried to make the Germans seem a bit sympathetic -- in one sequence the "really bad" German general kills off his counterparts, who are trying to tell each other the war is over and "more of us will die if we keep fighting". There's also a bit with another German villain that feels overly calculated, but I won't spoil it. What bothered me especially was a line Steve has, basically saying "we're all wrong" or something of that nature. Pretty sure people actually did die in that war fighting for causes they believed in, regardless of the side they were on -- it felt "modern" and revisionist, and smacked of trendy "21st century globalist" politics or whatever you want to call it.

That said...the film doesn't rub your face in it, and there's not much (if anything) of the "anti-male, modern feminist" crap that I expected to see, but it's definitely like the CAPTAIN AMERICA movie -- a totally sanitized backdrop so that viewers who know nothing about the actual conflict will come away with a totally misguided view.

It is, though, all about foreign box-office revenue, and it's an obvious cash-grab on the part of the studio (no different than what Marvel did on CAP of course too).

[Eric Paddon]

What bothered me especially was a line Steve has, basically saying "we're all wrong" or something of that nature. Pretty sure people actually did die in that war fighting for causes they believed in, regardless of the side they were on -- it felt "modern" and revisionist, and smacked of trendy "21st century globalist" politics or whatever you want to call it.

Now that is a case of being totally dishonest. World War I has nothing going for it with hindsight (every problem we have in the mid-East today you can blame on the end of the Ottoman Empire, not to mention the end of Imperial Germany and Czarist Russia being responsible for the twin evils of Nazism and Communism) but EVERYONE who signed up for that war was doing it with gung-ho patriotism and optimism at the time and not just Americans singing "Over There!" and I guess no one ever mentions Woodrow Wilson and the phrase "War to end all wars" during the course of this. Unless they're depicting Steve Trevor as a victim of the trenches, I can't imagine anyone who was a pilot espousing that line of thinking.

[AndyDursin]

Now that is a case of being totally dishonest. World War I has nothing going for it with hindsight (every problem we have in the mid-East today you can blame on the end of the Ottoman Empire, not to mention the end of Imperial Germany and Czarist Russia being responsible for the twin evils of Nazism and Communism) but EVERYONE who signed up for that war was doing it with gung-ho patriotism and optimism at the time and not just Americans singing "Over There!" and I guess no one ever mentions Woodrow Wilson and the phrase "War to end all wars" during the course of this. Unless they're depicting Steve Trevor as a victim of the trenches, I can't imagine anyone who was a pilot espousing that line of thinking.

They do try and paint him as someone who's "seen it all" so I guess you can make an argument he's been "hardened" by the experience, but it still felt like pandering to the movie's "modern" political sensibilities, and somewhat out of place.

BTW Godot looks terrific but she does not have enough of a range, emotionally, to pull off a dramatic performance (her dialogue delivery is still somewhat stilted). I do think it's one reason why Pine tends to stand out in the film, because he actually bounces well off her and compliments her somewhat limited range.

[AndyDursin]

On a sidenote, you can get the entire Wonder Woman '70s series in 1080p on Vudu this week for $25. Seeing as I doubt we'll get a Blu-Ray of this, I snapped it up (also comes with $8 off a ticket for the new movie though I know you are passing on this one, Eric!).

http://www.vudu.com/movies/#!content/86 ... ies-Bundle

[AndyDursin]

Big $11 million Thursday night opening -- looks like DC has a winner here at the box-office that, unlike BATMAN V SUPERMAN and SUICIDE SQUAD, actually might benefit from word of mouth.

My review is up on the front page:

http://andyfilm.com/2017/06/02/6-6-17-w ... n-4k-wrap/

[Monterey Jack]

-Wonder Woman (2017): 8/10

For all the cries of delight greeting the latest entry in the DC cinematic universe, I can’t quite bring myself to declare this particular woman wondrous. Don’t get me wrong…it’s a strong, entertaining film that goes through all of the obligatory “origin story” stuff with grace, slivers of wit and actual, unforced HUMOR that’s a tonic compared to the sullen, po-faced religiosity that has bogged down Man Of Steel and Batman V Superman. And the mid-movie action with Gal Gadot’s WW finally living up to her full Goddess potential on the WWI “No Man’s Land” battlefield is ridiculously iconic and hugely gratifying. And yet…the film stumbles in the final act, with a generic final showdown rife with the usual “Sky Beam” **** that every superhero movie has climaxed with for the last five years. It brings the movie as a whole down a peg when we just wanted to keep the action on the same manageable, retro war movie level as, say, the first Captain America. What I really appreciated about this film is that it’s a FILM first, and not just a feature length sizzle reel setting up the next half-decade’s worth of DC product. There are virtually no overt callbacks or Credit Cookies (you can leave when the credits start if you need a pee…nothing hidden at the end), just a really good, stand-alone superhero adventure that finally gives us a bracing heroine who manages to be sexy, forthright in her duty to protect the innocent and a winningly naïve fish out of water when introduced to the literally buttoned-down gender politics of the early 20th Century. It’s FUN, most of all, and I wish that DC could maintain this level of fizzy escapism in future standalone features (I’m dying for a good Flash movie, one at least on a par with the terrific current television series).

[Eric Paddon]

I spent this evening revisiting the Lynda Carter pilot film for the first time in a few years. It's incredible to me how it totally hit all the right notes on all levels. Even though it was written by Stanley Ralph Ross who was responsible for "Batman" getting too over-the-top in the humor department, the presentation managed to be fun and light without degenerating into broad silliness.

It's especially remarkable to see the unabashed patriotic tone not just in light of what we're seeing today with the new film but remember that in 1975, unabashed flag-waving was out of favor in the Watergate era. Maybe the WW2 setting helped for that since when the show became contemporary, it tended to reflect the contemporary late 70s thinking more (the contemporary Wonder Woman battled far more crooks in government and bad Americans than foreign threats even though she was working as a spy now) but that was ultimately to the show's detriment.

Lynda Carter is so perfect in the role and makes it her own from the outset. Unlike the "Batman" TV series where Ross increasingly made Batman the butt of the joke, the success of Carter in the role is that she was allowed to play it straight and react with amused wonder to the crazy world around her that she saw. It's too bad that the new film couldn't find some way to give her a cameo just to acknowledge the fact that for so many people of a certain age she has always been the only person we can think of in the role.

[AndyDursin]

nd yet…the film stumbles in the final act, with a generic final showdown rife with the usual “Sky Beam” **** that every superhero movie has climaxed with for the last five years. It brings the movie as a whole down a peg when we just wanted to keep the action on the same manageable, retro war movie level as, say, the first Captain America. What I really appreciated about this film is that it’s a FILM first, and not just a feature length sizzle reel setting up the next half-decade’s worth of DC product.

Agreed (and GOTG 2 also felt self-contained with no "tags" that were overly obvious). I appreciated this movie as a superior "product", which is what it is. It sticks completely to this genre's "rules" and does not do anything clever or different with them -- but it is likeable, and it's well-made, albeit in a totally modern filmmaking context. At this point, we're unlikely to do much better.

Though, I had a problem with the middle of the movie. As someone who's always been sensitive to running times I am surprised you didn't have an issue with the 45-minute stretch of this movie where basically nothing happens. They introduce a slew of supporting characters, most of whom have no pay off, and there's some cute interplay with Gadot and Pine...but man, they really needed a set-piece there. Not necessarily a huge FX overload, but something would have helped. Once they set off for WWI it felt like an eternity before something happened again...felt like I was watching DOWNTON ABBEY with Wonder Woman in it. lol Yeah some of it is cute and effective -- but it went on too long, especially once they got to the village near the trenches.

It also irritates me a little because the way these movies are written -- from a sheer screenwriting perspective, they are inferior to movies from decades past. Would it kill them to actually develop supporting characters, or give them a point, other than to show up, say a line, and leave? "Hey look, it's the chubby British woman!" "Hey look, its the tall Native American guy who serves no point in the movie at all!" I'm still trying to figure out why he was there (then again, at least Chris Pine had something to do -- more than top-billed Tom Hiddleston in KONG SKULL ISLAND!).

Don't get me wrong...the movie did a lot of things right, and it's fun -- no doubt I will watch it again -- but it is very much confined by this (increasingly stifling) genre at the same time.

[Monterey Jack]

Though, I had a problem with the middle of the movie. As someone who's always been sensitive to running times I am surprised you didn't have an issue with the 45-minute stretch of this movie where basically nothing happens. They introduce a slew of supporting characters, most of whom have no pay off, and there's some cute interplay with Gadot and Pine...but man, they really needed a set-piece there. Not necessarily a huge FX overload, but something would have helped.

Hey, it beats seeing Superman punch Zod through fifty skyscrapers for an hour straight.

I really liked the little alley scrap where Diana learns how to use her bracelets to deflect bullets, which had some of the same wit as that scene from the first Richard Donner Superman where Clark Kent slyly catches a mugger's bullet meant for Lois and reveals it to the audience. I agree there could have been a bit more action during this section, but the lack of it only made Diana's eventual charge across No Man's Land (and subsequent liberation of the German villagers) all the more exciting. This is a modern-day superhero movie that actually had EB and FLOW between action and characterization, which went down like a tonic compared to the headache-inducing previous installments of the DC Universe. It's something superhero movies have been in dangerously short supply of for the last decade or so, all of them scared to death to not keep "stimulating" ever-more-jaded audiences with non-stop mayhem. It's like the difference between a great action movie like Die Hard (where the first gunshot is not discharged until a whopping 15 minutes in) and a lousy one like The Rock (where EVERY. SINGLE. SHOT is so jacked-up with swirling, hyperbolic camerawork and jittery editing that it's akin to downing a box of Twinkies with a six-pack of Jolt Cola). The scary thing is, movies like Die Hard, Raiders Of The Lost Ark and Star Wars were accused by some of being hyperbolic and over-the-top back in the day, but now they seem as stripped-down and elegant as an Alfred Hitchcock/David O. Selznick thriller from the mid-40's.

I've been introducing a lot of classic genre movies to my nineteen-year-old nephew recently, and -- bless his soul -- he's really been into them, digging the "retro" special effects and not complaining about the pacing at all for films like Robocop, Total Recall or the 70's Invasion Of The Body Snatchers (although it was kind of alarming that he only recognized Donald Sutherland from the Hunger Games movies, and Leonard Nimoy as "Old Man Spock" ). But, for every teenager open to experiencing older films and not nitpicking them to death, there are probably a dozen who would watch an 80's or 90's favorite like Innerspace, Darkman or Pulp Fiction and grouse about the "dated" special effects and "leaden" pacing.

[AndyDursin]

The trouble is that the "downtime" wasn't as astoundingly amazing for me. The level of the writing is just okay. It's amusing in pockets but I think the sheer fact it's not an endless assault of FX are making some overrate the film. Just because they're not pounding the bleep out of each other doesn't actually make it good. For me it was more lightly amusing than clever, and it goes on FOREVER. And I was disappointed the script didn't do a better job of connecting various elements in the film that were obviously there. I thought there would be some dramatic heft to Diana leaving the island or them circling back to it somehow, but there's really nothing to it, or the roles Robin Wright or Connie Nielsen play. The latter shows up, says a few lines, tells WW she's disappointed in her....and that's it.

Lots of good stuff, but way too long and too contrived at the same time. This entire genre needs a makeover!

[Paul MacLean]

The score however is phenomenal -- assuming Youtube viewer comments are reliable.