Wonder Woman Review (2017)

Lets get the hyperbole out of the way, shall we? Patty Jenkins’ “Wonder Woman” (the fourth film in the D.C. Extended Universe) is the best DC superhero film since “The Dark Knight.”

Now let me qualify that statement a bit: being the best DC superhero film since “Dark Knight” isn’t exactly a high mark to clear. “Suicide Squad” and “Batman v Superman” are miserable, overstuffed slogs and “Man of Steel” is good until that trainwreck of a last third. However, DC’s recent slump doesn’t diminish the high quality displayed in Jenkins’ picture. “Wonder Woman” isn’t merely passable or mediocre, it’s drastically better than those other lackluster flicks.

Jenkins emphasizes character over spectacle while the narrative is coherent and focused. It doesn’t tease upcoming DCEU films and the script by Allan Heinberg doesn’t clog the movie with unnecessary side plots or excess McGuffins to give the illusion of depth. Additionally, “Wonder Woman” is a lot of fun--charming and silly in equal measure. It combines the goofy, mythical otherworldliness of “Thor” with the period combat/espionage film dynamics of the first “Captain America” and lightly touches on the horrors of war and the struggles women face in society.

Through a flimsy flashback-framing device (that opens and closes the film with terribly ham-fisted voice over) we’re transported to the lush, dislocated island paradise known as Themysciria where a race of Amazons live in peace. Wonder Woman, aka Diana (Gal Gadot) is the most restless and headstrong of them, desperate to become a warrior and protect others from danger. She gets her chance when U.S. solider Steve (Chris Pine) crashes his airplane near the island. Steve is doing spy work for the British and warns the isolated Amazons about World War 1 and its threat to humanity. Diana decides to accompany Steve on his mission (going to the chaotic Western Front) hoping to singlehandedly stop the war and bring peace.

However, things aren’t so simple and in this regard “Wonder Woman” is a poignant coming of age film. Diana is fierce and self-assured, boldly marching into any harry situation. And unlike the pessimistic Batman or the latest mopey incarnation of Superman, she’s brimming with optimism. Though she’s also incredibly naïve and unprepared for the fact that humans, especially men, are a violent species that crave war and conflict. Her initial plan to stop the Great War is noble but somewhat simplistic, not taking into account the complexities and messiness of war. She’s never seen a village full of women and children cruelly gassed. This harsh reality has a tremendous effect on Diana, ultimately leaving her mature and slightly jaded.

This is admittedly gloomy material but Jenkins’ never lets said gloominess totally dominate the picture. “Wonder Woman” touches on the horrors of war and the cruelty of humanity while giddily embracing its pulpy comic book origins at the same time. Diana may not be able to fully comprehend the messy and gruesome nature of human conflict but she is a super being from a mythical realm--meaning she can do things the average solider can’t. At one point Diana heroically charges across No Mans Land to attack a German trench and free a French village, eventually inspiring fellow soldiers stuck in the trenches. Not a bad ally to have. Instead of spending all her time sulking about how awful humanity is Diana is proactive; killing plenty of Germans with her patented glowing lasso and shield, trying her hardest to remain optimistic and slice through the dense politics and convolutions of human conflict.  

On top of that, “Wonder Woman” playfully mocks rigid societal codes and structures, like The Patriarchy. The sequence in which Diana and Steve are in London to prepare for their mission is rife with great fish-out-of-water humor. Diana being puzzled by and then criticizing silly, misogynistic societal norms is a joy to watch. For example, her priceless reaction to the fact that women aren't allowed to be apart of high-level strategic meetings. Related to this spirited ribbing is the superb chemistry between Gadot and Pine-- their repartee and comedic timing are impeccable.

Pine, with his cocky and dopey performance, may be at his very best but Gadot is the star here. While her performance is occasionally shaky, (this is her first leading role) overall the relative newcomer holds her own, injecting Diana with ferocity, compassion and effortless wit. Jenkins keeps the film’s focus squarely on Diana and her evolution from bright-eyed Princess to grounded warrior.

The picture can be very clunky and heavy-handed at times, (ala the superfluous flashback-framing device) spoon-feeding fairly obvious plot points, themes and character arcs. Making matters worse, the last act is a mess. It’s the only time Jenkins really loses control of the project and things become incoherent. The final hero-villain showdown is an exhausting muddle of ugly CGI destruction (the CGI throughout looks third rate) and the villain himself is overly generic and one dimensional. It's the same old story:  good third acts and compelling villains are difficult to pull off in superhero movies.  Spectacle and cliche briefly snuffs out character and narrative clarity.

Nevertheless, “Wonder Woman” is an empowering, self contained, character driven, all around entertaining superhero origin film that more than adequately sets up the Amazonian Princess for future films.

B 

Batman v Superman: The Dawn of Justice Review (2016)

Zach Snyder’s “Batman v Superman” is the latest superhero extravaganza, this time courtesy of Warner Bros and DC. It’s a follow up to Snyder’s 2013 Superman reboot “Man of Steel” and Warner’s attempt to jumpstart a DC superhero universe (ala the Marvel Cinematic Universe) that will eventually lead to two “Justice League” movies. Unfortunately, Warner Bros is trying to establish this universe too quickly (the “Justice League” movies, as well as a few other standalone DC hero movies are in varying stages of production) and as a result this latest picture suffers dearly. Simply put: there’s too much going on in “Batman v Superman.” Snyder adheres to the “quantity over quality” philosophy. The picture is a disorganized, unfocused, overstuffed and emotionally stagnant mess that turns into a nonstop barrage of mind numbing action.

It’s a shame because the concept at the center of this mess is somewhat compelling. I know I’m in the minority in saying that I’ve grown tired of all these superhero movies, primarily because most tend to follow the same derivate cookie cutter plot involving a one-note villain and a major city being leveled. So, the idea of two superheroes having a scuffle is far more interesting to me than a superhero having to face yet another super villain hell-bent on world domination/destruction. Yet, because so much is crammed into the movie (including cameos from additional superheroes. In terms of the main narrative, they serve zero purpose. But hey…Aquaman!) the conflict gets lost in all the noise and commotion. I guess it’s not enough to simply have Batman and Superman fight.

As far as plot is concerned…there’s a lot of it (and it adds up to squat). We’ve got Batman in Gotham City and Superman in Metropolis…both in the same universe! Batman, aka Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck, unshaven and grouchy) is older and more cynical this time around; his senses are dulled, he’s tired of fighting crime that never seems to end and he’s a cold blooded killer. He’s also been directly affected by collateral damage due to Superman’s silly tendency to destroy buildings during his fights with baddies in Metropolis. For what it’s worth, Affleck’s jaded, washed up Batman is by far the best, most refreshing thing about the movie because it’s at least distinct from other onscreen incarnations.

As for the Kryptonian himself, Superman (Henry Cavill) is…there too.  He’s still flying around in his red cape and blue tights, at times resembling a wax figurine and posing as a reporter for the city newspaper by day, doing a lot of intense staring and brooding either way. That’s pretty much it. He’s the same old Superman. Cavill was so charming and funny in last year’s spy comedy “The Man from U.N.C.L.E,” but here, he has about as much personality and charisma as a block of Kryptonite. The conversations about him (by various supporting characters and Batman) are far more interesting: is Superman a god? Is he the savior we need? Or is he a false prophet? All thought provoking questions, except the movie only grazes the surface. We get Holly Hunter as a Metropolis senator giving heavy-handed speeches in front of committees and a media montage where various commentators discuss the “Superman Question.”

What else? Well, Superman’s main squeeze and fellow reporter Lois Lane (the lovely Amy Adams, doing the best she can with thinly written character) runs around in a pants suit doing some investigative journalism and needing rescueing from Superman (seriously, she gets captured like three times). We have the mysterious Lex Luther (Jesse Eisenberg, essentially doing an exaggerated version of his standard fast talking/wise ass persona with a smidge of The Joker thrown in. His performance feels forced most of the time and the character never quite cuts deep enough) that wants to get his hands on some powerful Kryptonian artifacts. There’s also Batman’s faithful confidant Alfred (Jeremy Irons) and…Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) is also shoved into the narrative, only because she’s got her own movie coming up soon (don’t worry, she was shown front and center in the trailers. No spoilers here). I guess it doesn’t matter that she doesn’t fit in with the central narrative. But one thing’s for certain: she has a neat costume.

OK…I’m exhausted.

“Batman v Superman” is overkill in practically everyway. There are too many characters and too many plotlines, which causes the first twenty-five minutes of the movie to be nothing but tedious exposition. It has to tease plot lines and characters for future movies. There are multiple glowing objects that are recovered and/or change hands throughout, a bizarre dream/simulation sequence that feels like it was left over from a first draft of the screenplay, and powerful beams of energy that shoot out of various facilities (powerful beams of energy have become common place in superhero movies for some reason). The movie even manages to go overboard on symbolism and social commentary. We get some 9/11 imagery, lots of Christ symbolism (it is Superman after all), allusions to bitter and disillusioned war veterans, all handled with the subtlety of Superman’s fist and shoddily inserted into the rest of the proceedings. There’s even an homage to “King Kong” near the end because, why not? In other words, the picture tries to cover so much material that it can’t really explore any of it in any real depth or nuance. It has to keep chugging along to shove in even more stuff.

What’s most frustrating is that, despite the convoluted plot and overabundance of material and characters, it adds up to virtually nothing.  Like most other superhero movies, it all comes down to a dull final clash between heroes and a power hungry super villain (again, apparently, Batman fighting Superman isn’t good enough) in a climax that goes on for what feels like an eternity. There are about four fight scenes crammed in to this single sequence, a surprise bad guy, ticking clocks, two damsels in distress and lots of city damage.  Seriously? Was there any sort of editing, either at the script stage or in postproduction? It’s the cherry on top of this chaos sundae.

Even from a technical standpoint the movie is a dud. The action sequences are horrendous--poorly shot using a mix of shaky hand held cam and disorienting crane/dolly work. The editing is muddled and nonsensical; we constantly lose track of what’s going on. And of course, there’s too much action. The cinematography by Larry Fong is simply atrocious, using dull, murky tones of grey and muddied, phony-looking CGI backgrounds. Meanwhile, Han Zimmer’s thundering orchestral score is overbearing and obnoxious. It’s used much too frequently and occasionally drowns out the dialogue.

The bigger issue here is that “Batman v Superman” wants to be big and epic in every scene, as if the filmmakers were worried they would bore the audience (well, they bored us anyway). Rarely does it settle down and let quiet, more intimate moments between characters play out. The few romantic scenes between Superman and Lois feel cheesy and forced. As is the case with most of Snyder’s movies, “Batman v Superman” is ultimately more committed to style and spectacle rather then character and narrative substance.

The longer “Batman v Superman” went on (and the more stuff it introduced) the more I grew to despise it. I walked out of the theater seething with rage, angry that I had to sit through such a long, hollow, bloated mess that wants so badly to be about everything that it’s not much about anything in the long run. It’s one of the worst superhero movies to come out in a while and I never want to see or think about it again.

D