It definitely connected with me way more than the current Marvel crop, though I’ve enjoyed many of those. As I said upthread, I cared about Diana. I have a very hard time giving a damn about, say, Tony Stark. But I think the first “Iron Man” was a solid movie.
I’ve never seen a straightforward superhero flick anywhere near as good.
Whether or not a movie has plot holes has no bearing on whether it’s good or bad. The original Star Wars was a beautifully structured movie but the plot made no sense. Rogue One’s efforts to retcon them were pointless because they weren’t important.
It occurred to me last night that one of the reasons for its sky-high reviews is that it is in the right place at the right time.
The US has a president who was audio recorded as being grossly disparaging to women. There have been pro-feminist rallies in the US. That awful photo of Donald Trump signing an antiabortion executive order in January, surrounded by men and not a woman in sight, caused (quite properly) fury amongst women’s rights advocates. Listening to a men’s rights debate on the radio two days ago and the anti-feminist philosophy underpinning that made me think that feminists might be feeling besieged.
And then along comes a movie with a strongly feminist message. Don’t get me wrong: I liked the movie (and as the father of three daughters I count myself as a feminist). But superhero movies with a female character as the lead tend to do very poorly (Catwoman, Elektra, Supergirl). Is *Wonder Woman *wildly popular because the message comes at just the right time?
I think those three movies did poorly because they were bad. Nothing to do with the timing. The Rotten Tomatoes critics’ ratings for those three movies are nine percent, ten percent and seven percent.
<Just noticed that this thread existed>
I enjoyed it a lot. She was a genuine hero, and I liked that they didn’t try to force a feminist message down our throats: it’s much more powerful for her to be brave and strong and just incidentally a woman. It was a good performance, and Chris Pine was good too.
And I loved the WWI setting and the effort they went to for some shots.
The criticisms are more like nitpicks:
Personally, I couldn’t enjoy the going over the top moment. I like the concept, but slow motion catwalk modelling to the camera was just too cheesy. If she had gone over holding a big shield, or running, I wouldn’t have that quibble.
How vulnerable is she anyway? She needs to block bullets, and many of the amazons were killed by gunshot wounds. Yet she can smash into that clock tower without a scratch and is immortal. In the end, it’s kind of like Thor in that you don’t feel she could really be in any danger, but feel somewhat tricked by the earlier set up.
Nazis again. I don’t care that it’s WWI, most of the Nazi tropes were there. And a shame to portray them as simply the bad guys again.
I disagree that it was as funny as other Marvel movies. Not a big criticism as I don’t think it tried to be. But some here are saying it’s the funniest recent Marvel movie…the last Marvel I saw was Doctor Strange, which had plenty of laugh out loud moments I don’t know how anyone could claim fewer than this movie.
OK, fair enough. It’s a matter of taste. But I still don’t see why this movie was better that the first Avengers movie, among others. (Or Super, or Push, if we can leave the main stream.)
she is a god but she didn’t know that, and the movie is shown from her pov. i’m not sure why she bled from that initial attack, is her level of invulnerability dependent on her awareness?
What really gets me is how we’re all supposed to ooh and aah at the final big action scene, which is pretty generic now. Those have without exception become so boring. I really only see these movies anymore as sort of a duty, but then I instantly forget them.
Wonder Woman is DC, not Marvel.
Ah, of course. Maybe I read DC but was thinking Marvel. Yes, it’s a lot funnier than other DC movies.
Oops, just read my own post back and that point came out wrong.
By “them” I meant the Germans, not Nazis. Given the setting, they had the possibility for more nuance. I liked the callous British General, but apart from that it was bad guys vs good guys.
Miller writes:
> To be exact, this movie was set during WWI. The framing device is not the setting.
I disagree. The setting for the film is the frame. This film is an explanation of her appearance in Batman v Superman. It’s her memories of her childhood and her leaving the island during World War I. If there are any future movies about her life between World War I and her appearance in Batman v Superman, I presume that they will also be told as flashbacks, where in length the flashback will be nearly all the film.
Was it 30 secs though? Trevor must have phoned Candy at some point, and they don’t show that, so we can assume there’s a lot of transitions they just skip over.
The message I got is that there are actually very few good guys on either side.
Also - did you miss the Indian smuggler hugging one German soldier at the end? That never happens in Nazi movies.
When you talk about the setting of a movie, you’re talking about the story it tells. The entire story was set in 1917. That’s the setting. It doesn’t matter that it’s framed by a few minutes of scenes in the present. Those are like a prologue and an epilogue.
The new terms is “Whole Episoide Flashback.”
Okay, fine, but the point is that the story being told on this movie wasn’t that of an employee at a museum receiving a package from a rich patron. So that’s not the relevant setting.
Yeah, no-one is going to claim Titanic is actually set aboard R/V Akademik Mstislav Keldysh
Wendell Wagner would.
The Titanic had several scenes set in the present day and were interspaced throughout the film. WW is one short scene at the start and another at the end.
So, you agree, the case is even weaker for WW being “set in the Louvre”…since no-one would argue that because of the numerous other scenes, Titanic is not, in fact, primarily set on the so-named boat. Or primarily set in the present day.