![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Wonder Woman 1984
...had a lot of bad reviews, which is why I waited to watch it till it was available on Amazon Prime. Overall: just as I had liked Wonder Woman without loving it the way most viewers seem to have done, I liked this second outing, while seeing the flaws it has been accused of.
Specifically: it's definitely too long. The opening Themiskyra flashback is pure fanservice (presumably since everyone had liked the Amazon scenes in Wonder Woman so much, and the point they make about young Diana's lesson to be learned could have been made far shorter, if it was necessary at all since the main plot is also about that. The film's embrace of 1980s tropes comes across as happening without any narrative awareness that we don't look at them the same way several decades later. This can be mildly amusing (being asked to regard a gorgeous movie actress as frumpy and mousey because she wears glasses, sigh), or, to coin a breathtakingly new phrase, problematic. To wit: in its laudable intention to making our heroine face a genuine emotional dilemma no physical strength can help her with, the film has Diana's wish for Steve Trevor to return - which she makes without knowing it can become true, and not even out loud - come true by letting him inhabit someone else's body... and then shows zero awareness there might be a problem with Steve having sex with Diana in that other guy's body, or with Diana, until circumstances become too dire, intending to let Steve essentially have this person's life. I mean, presumably Steve ends up in a real man's body - though still played by Chris Pine after establishing said body for the audience and switching to Diana's pov, who sees him as Chris Pine - instead of materializing out of thin air as a homage to various body switch/inhabiting comedies. But it inadvertently makes Diana - and Steve at first - look terrible for not even considering what this means to the original inhabitant, or that this person's friends and family might mourn him just as much as Diana mourned Steve if the hijacking becomes permanent. The moral dilemma Diana faces is never about this, it ends up being about Steve vs the world instead, and that's no dilemma at all, or are we seriously believing Diana would allow the planet to go boom so she can keep Steve around?
There's also the usual geographical andn logistical nonsense, though I'm amused reviews are complaining about Steve and Diana flying to Egypt and back on a many decades old plane in this movie, yet did not have a problem with the Themiscyra to England boat trip or the grand party at the Western front in the autumn of 1918 where everyone drove to in cars (what do you mean, Germany was short on petrol (and everything else), and there were various uprisings in German cities already, and both the generals and the Emperor kept having breakdowns?), not to mention the fates of Luddendorff and all the other German generals (which made me wonder whether WW2 and Hitler even happened in this universe, given that both Luddendorff and Hindenburg were kind of necessary to Hitler's ascension). Which is to say: yes, it's rubbing geography and history. What else is new? If you didn't mind it in the first one, why mind it in the second one?
Because on the other side of all these minuses, I found still a lot for me to like. Diane keeps being a refreshingly uncynical heroine, and while I wish the movies wouldn't insist on Steve as the only man she ever loved in nearly 80 years, the way he's supportive of and into her heroics without the slightest manly angst about wanting to be the protector keeps being endearing. We see characters enjoy themselves and be happy, something DCU superhero movies can forget, but not the two WW ones. I approve of Diana going out of the way to not kill her opponents in a big action movie in a way that feels far more believable to me than, say, the Dardevil tv s how insisted on having on the one hand Matt Murdoch consider killing as the big red line he won't cross but on the other letting him inflict so much violence on his opponents that in anything remotely resembling reality, most of them would have died of the results, no matter his intention. The first movie had such a huge supporting cast (the Amazons at first, the members of Steve's squad, Etta, Luddendorff and his minion, Ares in disguise) that at times it felt like some were short changed because there wasn't the chance to flesh them out; here, Barbara Minerva and Max Lord both get enough screen time and clear character trajectories.
"There's good in everyone, even in 1980s fashion" might be corny, but as summmer movies are concerned, which is what this was intended to be, it's my kind of message. The above mentioned flaws not withstandig, I'd still rather watch this than yet another bombastic Batman movie, and don't regret having done so.
Specifically: it's definitely too long. The opening Themiskyra flashback is pure fanservice (presumably since everyone had liked the Amazon scenes in Wonder Woman so much, and the point they make about young Diana's lesson to be learned could have been made far shorter, if it was necessary at all since the main plot is also about that. The film's embrace of 1980s tropes comes across as happening without any narrative awareness that we don't look at them the same way several decades later. This can be mildly amusing (being asked to regard a gorgeous movie actress as frumpy and mousey because she wears glasses, sigh), or, to coin a breathtakingly new phrase, problematic. To wit: in its laudable intention to making our heroine face a genuine emotional dilemma no physical strength can help her with, the film has Diana's wish for Steve Trevor to return - which she makes without knowing it can become true, and not even out loud - come true by letting him inhabit someone else's body... and then shows zero awareness there might be a problem with Steve having sex with Diana in that other guy's body, or with Diana, until circumstances become too dire, intending to let Steve essentially have this person's life. I mean, presumably Steve ends up in a real man's body - though still played by Chris Pine after establishing said body for the audience and switching to Diana's pov, who sees him as Chris Pine - instead of materializing out of thin air as a homage to various body switch/inhabiting comedies. But it inadvertently makes Diana - and Steve at first - look terrible for not even considering what this means to the original inhabitant, or that this person's friends and family might mourn him just as much as Diana mourned Steve if the hijacking becomes permanent. The moral dilemma Diana faces is never about this, it ends up being about Steve vs the world instead, and that's no dilemma at all, or are we seriously believing Diana would allow the planet to go boom so she can keep Steve around?
There's also the usual geographical andn logistical nonsense, though I'm amused reviews are complaining about Steve and Diana flying to Egypt and back on a many decades old plane in this movie, yet did not have a problem with the Themiscyra to England boat trip or the grand party at the Western front in the autumn of 1918 where everyone drove to in cars (what do you mean, Germany was short on petrol (and everything else), and there were various uprisings in German cities already, and both the generals and the Emperor kept having breakdowns?), not to mention the fates of Luddendorff and all the other German generals (which made me wonder whether WW2 and Hitler even happened in this universe, given that both Luddendorff and Hindenburg were kind of necessary to Hitler's ascension). Which is to say: yes, it's rubbing geography and history. What else is new? If you didn't mind it in the first one, why mind it in the second one?
Because on the other side of all these minuses, I found still a lot for me to like. Diane keeps being a refreshingly uncynical heroine, and while I wish the movies wouldn't insist on Steve as the only man she ever loved in nearly 80 years, the way he's supportive of and into her heroics without the slightest manly angst about wanting to be the protector keeps being endearing. We see characters enjoy themselves and be happy, something DCU superhero movies can forget, but not the two WW ones. I approve of Diana going out of the way to not kill her opponents in a big action movie in a way that feels far more believable to me than, say, the Dardevil tv s how insisted on having on the one hand Matt Murdoch consider killing as the big red line he won't cross but on the other letting him inflict so much violence on his opponents that in anything remotely resembling reality, most of them would have died of the results, no matter his intention. The first movie had such a huge supporting cast (the Amazons at first, the members of Steve's squad, Etta, Luddendorff and his minion, Ares in disguise) that at times it felt like some were short changed because there wasn't the chance to flesh them out; here, Barbara Minerva and Max Lord both get enough screen time and clear character trajectories.
"There's good in everyone, even in 1980s fashion" might be corny, but as summmer movies are concerned, which is what this was intended to be, it's my kind of message. The above mentioned flaws not withstandig, I'd still rather watch this than yet another bombastic Batman movie, and don't regret having done so.
no subject
no subject
Now one can make a case that Diana, when she urges Minerva to give up her wish, - because voluntarily giving up your wish is practically the only thing able to restore some balance to the apocalypse-producing doom - , has it easy because she never lacked for powers or confidence, BUT again, it's not about being a superhero. (Which Minerva isn't, she's the main villain's minion at this point.) Also, the script uses the scene to let Minerva challenge her back, and Diana's realization she has to walk the walk and give up her own wish first is the point here.
Mind you, as I said in the main review, I think what the script is aiming for - giving Diana a challenge she can't defeat via superpowers, because it's emotional and ethical in nature - and what it actually delivers are two different things, because a) the script completely ignores the implication of Steve Trevor inhabiting a real person, and b) once the alternative to giving up her wish is world doom, there's no dilemma for someone like Diana. But it really doesn't use the "anyone who wants to be a superhero other than Bruce Wayne doesn't deserve it" trope. Pre-making her wish, Barbara Minerva - who is presented as an excellent scholar and a shy, kind person (we see her chatting with a homeless person on her way back from work and giving him a meal she's bought for him as a short hand for this) - is happy with her job, she just wishes for better social graces and more confidence. And Maxwell Lord, before he comes across the wishing stone, just wants to succeed as a rich and powerful tv personality/business mogul, something he pretends to be but with the awareness his various cons are about to be exploded. No one wants to be a superhero at all in this film.
BTW, much as I, too, disliked the "never got over Steve" decision for Diana, I did like a retcon from Batman vs Superman this movie did, to wit, removing the implicatian Diana stopped superheroing post WWI. Wonder Woman 1984 declares she still helped people in need, but usually super discreetly and outside of any camera range.
no subject