Weird Bump, but I got WW in 4K and watched it last weekend. It's now the 3rd time I've watched it and the more times I watch it, the less it holds up sadly. The cheesy dialogue about "love" being the answer, WW's insane, over-the-top powers at the end of the movie, the casting of Ares...I think we were all so excited when it came out (A. It was a good female-led superhero movie and B. It was the first DCEU movie that was liked by most people) that we overlooked some serious flaws and very, very vanilla story-telling.
That's sexist. But seriously I felt that way when it came out. I was and still am just excited about seeing strong female characters, but no it was a far from groundbreaking film. Being the best DC film though really helped people love it. James Cameron was sort of right when he said this movie doesn't push things for women. It tells, like you said, a vanilla story about a protagonist who happens to be a woman instead of empowering women to be what they can be. A subtle distinction, and I think WW is still a good step forward, but a good point by Cameron still.
I saw it again recently too and the only not parts I enjoyed were the fight scenes. Same thing with Deadpool, loved it the first time but second and third watched were boring when you knew the jokes that were coming.
If we are being honest, WW should not be "empowering" any girls. WW is able to do the things she is doing because she is a freaking god and is smoking, inferno hot. If anything, it might be detrimental to little girls looking up to her. Look what you can accomplish...if you happen to be top .0001% in the looks department and have superhuman abilities. James Cameron is right. Sarah Conner was more of a role model. Ripley was a role model. WW is just more of the same: an impossible standard for a female to strive towards. I still like the movie. I really do. But if I'm being honest, I like Man of Steel better. That movie got better each time I watched it. Granted, I was always a Man of Steel supporter.
I mean she's an impossible standard the same way that Superman and Batman are, but still a standard whether that's fair or not. Not to mention, it's a step forward in terms of film making and representation in that a female lead action movie was a hit. Use Atomic Blonde for example: that movie was horrible. It was marketed as John Wick from a female perspective and instead it was completely underwhelming. There's a good number of female feature failures in the action category so Hollywood has typically shied away from those roles. WW helped break that mold which is a great thing for actresses and it's good for girls to see women in a strong role. Man of Steel is okay, I just don't like the tone and obviously I'm not a fan of the visceral ending in regards to a Superman movie.
I’ve often wondered if perhaps the resistance to a female hero movie might be biologically encoded into our DNA and out of our control to an extent. Thousands of years of women seeking out the strongest male to mate with; a mate that goes out and hunts for food fights to protect the family, etc. I am NOT suggesting that’s the way it needs to be now. My wife makes more than I do, and I’m happy about that. But just because we have been trying to change that narrative in the last 50 years or so, doesn’t mean the instinctual biological thought processes have changed. You can’t change the instincts built up over 99% of our existence with brute force in a short few years. Seeking equality in human rights is something we all should strive for. But gender roles are biologically imprinted on humans as well as the entirety of the animal kingdom. Perhaps WW worked because in the end she wasn’t really a human at all.
I agree with your take on WW, Savory. I liked it, but I haven’t watched it a second time, and have no real desire to. It’s a good movie, not great, not awesome, not bad, just good. It feels so much like Captain America though, I feel no need to revisit it, I didn’t love the first CA either. When WW came out a lot of the reviews said stuff like finally DC makes a good movie, nobody was calling it amazing, it was pumped up sort of in comparison to how bland Suicide Squad was and how bad BvS was. It was pretty dang good compared to those, but on its own it had a lot of issues you pointed out, and I also agree MoS is better. It’s not even a female hero thing, has nothing to do with that me, Diana was a more engaging and interesting character than Clark/Superman was, but I like Superman’s world and Zod more than the villain of WW whose name I forgot. God of war disguised as old, unintimidating, mustachioed British man. I genuinely thought when he transformed into his true form the face and voice would change too, was kind of disappointed they didn’t, looked a little silly.
I think the majority of the failure over the last few years has to do with Hollywood biases. Not that Hollywood is inherently anti-woman or anything, but that Hollywood is a "who you know" club and the vast majority look out for each other instead of quality. The efforts to push a female hero have been half-***ed by people who either aren't that talented or not that into the product. You could be right about biology as well, but I think there's a lot of factors that we have built over the last few hundred years that are ingrained in society. Gender roles and expectations.
Ehhh..I mean it doesn’t look bad, but I feel like I saw this movie in 2012 when it was called The Avengers.
Is it weird that I really, REALLY liked that trailer? I thought it was visually spectacular. It "looks" far better than anything Marvel has ever done. I put looks in quotes because I'm speaking strictly from an aesthetics/cinematography perspective.
So, we're less than 36 hours away from Justice League and the review embargo still hasn't been lifted. I suppose we shouldn't be worried, right? It's not like the DC universe has given us stuff to be concerned about.
Actually... https://www.express.co.uk/entertain...an-Superman-Wonder-Woman-Flash-Aquaman-Cyborg The reviews are about 85% awful. Rotten Tomatoes has the movie at around 51% approved. The embargo on Rotten Tomatoes was pushed back many suspect because WB is a minority shareholder in the company and wanted to preserve the opening weekend box office which is projected to do well.
Youtuber reviewers have started to roll out their videos. Mostly its in the middle. Not bad but not great either, apparently does a good job of introducing the new characters but there are some story telling problems.
Rotten Tomatoes (finally) released the reviews. The leak had it at 43%, it opened at 40%, and now it's at 37% and expected to drop further. I was on the fence about this movie given my complete disdain for Batman v Superman, but I'm 100% out now. I probably wouldn't even watch this on DVD. Maybe Netflix. I think it's important not to support bad movies. I was half-way hoping after Wonder Woman things would change, but it doesn't look that way at all.
Why would it change? It's not about the actors or the characters, it's about the director. Wonder Woman was good because the woman that directed it did an amazing job. Justice League is still directed by Zach Snyder, so it's going to be dark, action packed and disjointed. That's what he does.
I agree. Part of me feels bad about this, but I sort of enjoy this demise. These are bad products. There shouldn't be any of these terrible movies. Hopefully this puts the majority of these movies on ice and allows for actual story and talent to be driven. Build the universe around Wonder Woman. It was a solid movie and Gal Gadot is a solid asset.
I saw it last night. It wasn't terrible at all, IMO. Was it great? No. But reading some of the reviews, the complaints levied against it are levied against Marvel films, but they always score fresh. It wasn't actually very dark. The villain was lame, but other than Loki, Alexander Pierce and MAYBE Vulture, the villains in the Marvel movies have sucked over and over again. Even when they have all-world talent like Cate Blanchette or James Spader, they still manage to come off as, "I want everyone to die cause I just don't like people." The heroes are all likable this time. Batman is more like Batman as opposed to the murderous vigilante he was in BvS. There is humor. Some of it is really funny, some of it falls flat, but they tried to lighten it up a bit. Superman is starting to feel like Superman again. @therealdeal mentioned building the entire universe around WW, but you can definitely start to build this thing around Superman now. I don't think there was any way they could have fixed all the issues wrought by Snyder in BvS. This film sort of transitioned from Snyders bleak aesthetic to a little lighter one and I think it will continue to course correct in that direction. I'm pleased with the movie because they couldn't just forget BvS happened and make it look like Marvel, but they were able to turn a corner. It has a 38%, but a 5.3 overall score. That's one thing I hate about Rotten Tomatoes. People look at that big score, but don't look at the average review. Thor the Dark World for example had an average review of 6.2, less than a point higher than Justice Leagues review, but scored a full 30% higher on the RT score. It seems like everyone was teetering on thumb up or down and then just decided to give it a thumbs down. I'm not trying to talk anyone into watching it, but this was better than Batman vs. Superman. People were cheering in my IMAX screening last night throughout.
