Reviews on Wonder Woman
Jun. 3rd, 2017 11:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatThe review in The Atlantic about Wonder Woman, I pretty much agree with in its entirety.
Directing from a script by Allan Heinberg, Patty Jenkins (Monster) favors character over conflict, an approach that yields precisely the happy results one might have anticipated. Gadot, in particular, is a delight as Diana: supremely capable yet utterly innocent, a big fish who has left her little pond and now finds herself out of water altogether. As her guide to the ways of the masculine world—which consist principally of lying and pointless fighting—Pine’s Steve is equal parts incredulous and enraptured toward Diana.
Wonder Woman does have its share of flaws. At two hours and 20 minutes, it is considerably overlong. A more compelling villain would have helped matters, and one scene in which Diana brutally impales a foe with her sword is an incongruous fit with the movie’s overall tone. Also, it seems a bit retrograde to have the first big female-led superhero film end with the lesson that “only love can truly save the world”—especially given the abundant evidence that what actually saved the world was Gal Gadot kicking ass all over Belgium. [Actually, I don't entirely agree, I liked that theme, although it did seem incongruous, after she won by fighting.]
The final big action sequence, as now seems always to be the case, is a messy and overwrought CGI extravaganza. But at least the movie that precedes it involves actual characters—likeable ones, even!—exhibiting recognizable human emotions. Here’s hoping that DC and Warner Bros. have registered the value of such straightforward pleasures in time for Snyder’s upcoming Justice League. If even he can learn such a lesson, perhaps there’s hope for the human race after all.
And A.O Scott of the NY Times, who I rarely agree with. (I liked Dark Knight more than he did and was not a huge fan of Toby MaGuire's Spiderman.)
Once franchise continuity is established — a mysterious package from Bruce Wayne arrives at the office of Wonder Woman’s alter ego, Diana Prince, who works in the Louvre’s antiquities department — we are transported back to the heroine’s earlier life, long before she became mixed up with Wayne and Clark Kent. “Wonder Woman,” directed by Patty Jenkins from a script by Allan Heinberg, briskly shakes off blockbuster branding imperatives and allows itself to be something relatively rare in the modern superhero cosmos. It feels less like yet another installment in an endless sequence of apocalyptic merchandising opportunities than like … what’s the word I’m looking for? A movie. A pretty good one, too.
By which I mean that “Wonder Woman” tells an interesting, not entirely predictable story (until the climax, which reverts, inevitably and disappointingly, to dreary, overblown action clichés). It cleverly combines genre elements into something reasonably fresh, touching and fun. Its earnest insouciance recalls the “Superman” movies of the ’70s and ’80s more than the mock-Wagnerian spectacles of our own day, and like those predigital Man of Steel adventures, it gestures knowingly but reverently back to the jaunty, truth-and-justice spirit of an even older Hollywood tradition.
This is an origin story, first and foremost, establishing the mythic background and modern mission of its main character. That kind of movie can be tedious, but “Wonder Woman” is leavened by touches of screwball comedy, espionage caper and romantic adventure, as well as by what might be the most credible superhero screen kiss since upside-down Tobey Maguire planted one on Kirsten Dunst way back in “Spider-Man.”
After seeing "Man of Steel", "Batman vs. Superman", this was a breath of fresh air.
And it was lighter and more uplifting than the Nolan films. More humor, and wit.
I wouldn't mine seeing it again, when it's released on demand. But recommend a movie theater. I did not see it in 3D. 3D gives me a headache, particularly with action movies. Although there were sequences that were clearly meant for 3D, and I could tell it was filmed with that in mind.
Directing from a script by Allan Heinberg, Patty Jenkins (Monster) favors character over conflict, an approach that yields precisely the happy results one might have anticipated. Gadot, in particular, is a delight as Diana: supremely capable yet utterly innocent, a big fish who has left her little pond and now finds herself out of water altogether. As her guide to the ways of the masculine world—which consist principally of lying and pointless fighting—Pine’s Steve is equal parts incredulous and enraptured toward Diana.
Wonder Woman does have its share of flaws. At two hours and 20 minutes, it is considerably overlong. A more compelling villain would have helped matters, and one scene in which Diana brutally impales a foe with her sword is an incongruous fit with the movie’s overall tone. Also, it seems a bit retrograde to have the first big female-led superhero film end with the lesson that “only love can truly save the world”—especially given the abundant evidence that what actually saved the world was Gal Gadot kicking ass all over Belgium. [Actually, I don't entirely agree, I liked that theme, although it did seem incongruous, after she won by fighting.]
The final big action sequence, as now seems always to be the case, is a messy and overwrought CGI extravaganza. But at least the movie that precedes it involves actual characters—likeable ones, even!—exhibiting recognizable human emotions. Here’s hoping that DC and Warner Bros. have registered the value of such straightforward pleasures in time for Snyder’s upcoming Justice League. If even he can learn such a lesson, perhaps there’s hope for the human race after all.
And A.O Scott of the NY Times, who I rarely agree with. (I liked Dark Knight more than he did and was not a huge fan of Toby MaGuire's Spiderman.)
Once franchise continuity is established — a mysterious package from Bruce Wayne arrives at the office of Wonder Woman’s alter ego, Diana Prince, who works in the Louvre’s antiquities department — we are transported back to the heroine’s earlier life, long before she became mixed up with Wayne and Clark Kent. “Wonder Woman,” directed by Patty Jenkins from a script by Allan Heinberg, briskly shakes off blockbuster branding imperatives and allows itself to be something relatively rare in the modern superhero cosmos. It feels less like yet another installment in an endless sequence of apocalyptic merchandising opportunities than like … what’s the word I’m looking for? A movie. A pretty good one, too.
By which I mean that “Wonder Woman” tells an interesting, not entirely predictable story (until the climax, which reverts, inevitably and disappointingly, to dreary, overblown action clichés). It cleverly combines genre elements into something reasonably fresh, touching and fun. Its earnest insouciance recalls the “Superman” movies of the ’70s and ’80s more than the mock-Wagnerian spectacles of our own day, and like those predigital Man of Steel adventures, it gestures knowingly but reverently back to the jaunty, truth-and-justice spirit of an even older Hollywood tradition.
This is an origin story, first and foremost, establishing the mythic background and modern mission of its main character. That kind of movie can be tedious, but “Wonder Woman” is leavened by touches of screwball comedy, espionage caper and romantic adventure, as well as by what might be the most credible superhero screen kiss since upside-down Tobey Maguire planted one on Kirsten Dunst way back in “Spider-Man.”
After seeing "Man of Steel", "Batman vs. Superman", this was a breath of fresh air.
And it was lighter and more uplifting than the Nolan films. More humor, and wit.
I wouldn't mine seeing it again, when it's released on demand. But recommend a movie theater. I did not see it in 3D. 3D gives me a headache, particularly with action movies. Although there were sequences that were clearly meant for 3D, and I could tell it was filmed with that in mind.