Isn't it a Wonder

Wonder Woman isn't crap!

*cheering*

Better still, while given DC's run so far, not being crap is an achievement in itself, this goes the extra mile and is actually good!

Not great (as several reviews have been rating it), but while not one of its compatriots is good enough to be ranked alongside even the worst of the MCU so far, Wonder Woman sits comfortably up there with Iron Man, Thor and Doctor Strange, and is certainly better than The Incredible Hulk and The Dark World.

The cast is bang-on.  I balked at the announcement of Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, as I'd only seen her in the Fast and Furious franchise, in which she was about as Amazonian as a willow tree:

She is now literally twice the woman she was

Hopes were raised when a mid-training pic was released, and she'd already bulked significantly, and when BvS finally rolled around, she proved to be an island of awesome in a sea of regurgitated pigswill.

And Wonder Woman shows she doesn't just shine by comparison to a dreary mound of bilge, but can carry an entire, enjoyable film, portraying strength and naivety, humour and pain, and convincingly kicking a significant amount of arse.

Chris Pine, too, shines in his sidekick/romantic interest roll, that manages to be more than you might expect from those things.  Steve Trevor has passion, wit and agency, and while the romance is a little rushed, there is chemistry between the two leads.

The supporting cast - from the residents of Themyscira to Steve's eclectic entourage - are also strong, and the whole ensemble interacts well, though as a result, it's a shame we won't get to see any of these characters again.  The DCEU could do with some likable supporting characters outside of the super-humans to flesh things out.

Unfortunately, the film is not without its (sometimes significant) issues; most of which are now staples of the DCEU.  While Wonder Woman is a lot sunnier and more colourful than previous entries, there is still overuse of a high-contrast filter that makes everything look garish, and makes any special effects scenes - whether they be using CGI or blue-screen - look amateurish.

A particular scene early on, that shows Steve Trevor bombing a weapons factory, is cringe worthy.

Speaking of special effects, it's refreshing to see CGI used so sparingly.  But when it is used, it's terrible, most notably in the climactic battle that devolves into the same muddled, phony, crappy-video-game-cut-scene mess that we suffered through in the previous two films.

The pacing is also off.  The opening 20 minutes is one long, boring exposition dump (albeit broken up by a decent battle on a beach).  The whole thing could've been done with a two-minute voice-over, interspersed with footage of Diana's training, and hints that she's not like the rest of her people.  You then have the beach battle, quick catch-up on the War, and off she goes to save the world.

That, or you spend more time on Themyscira, properly developing the characters and back-story, and showing instead of telling, rather than rushing through it like a history lecture even the teacher doesn't want to sit through.

Fortunately, once they're off the island, things pick up.  The interaction between our leads is playful, and humorously awkward, Gadot's wide-eyed, fish-out-of-water - yet smartest person in the room - routine is perfectly pitched, and there's plenty of fun to be had with Steve's secretary, Etta, played by the always brilliant, but unrecognisable (until I just looked her up on IMDB to see who it was) Lucy Davis.

One of those Oh yeah, it's her from that thing... actresses

Then it's off to war, and it's here where the film really rises up.  In the comics, Wonder Woman's origin was set during World War II, and she spent much of her time - like many super-heroes of the era - punching Nazis in the name of freedom.

The film, however, is set during World War I, where the 'bad guys' could not be so clearly defined.  This means that, not only could they show Diana's innocence being torn to shreds by the horrors of war - and it very much is in a couple of particularly effecting scenes - but also her naivety about good vs. evil, and man's capacity for both, how ever noble or well-intentioned they may be.

Things do slow down again, after a tremendous battle that stretches from No-Mans Land to an occupied village, but not for long, and not without purpose.

Alas, this being a DC film, the great cast, enjoyable characters and depth of writing can't save it from the clumsy, childish hand of Warner Bros. execs.  Now, I don't know for certain that it was they who demanded yet another CGI shit-fest for the climax, but it reeks of the same studio intervening I smell at the end of both Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad.  And as all three films have had different writing and and directing teams, it's a safe bet that these ill-thought-out, unconvincingly explosive finales are corporately mandated.

While occasionally imaginative, it's slow, distractingly fake, often difficult to follow (thank Christ we didn't see this in 3D), and has a few slow-down moments meant to emphasise some kind of inner-turmoil, or big crescendo, but evoke only an eye-roll at dragging out the tedium.

It doesn't ruin the film, by any means, and the ending does have its brave, heartfelt and well-executed moments, but it does lessen what could have been a strong, poignant climax.

Wonder Woman shows that DC still has a lot bugs in its formula it needs to iron out, but it's a confident stride in the right direction.  Let's just hope things don't regress with Justice League (at least the trailer has jokes).

Teetotality and Transitions both Terrible and Tremendous

By the balmy bloated ball-sack of Beelzebub, it's been warm!

Rather difficult to concentrate on any form of work or writing when the inescapable heat is causing one's head to throb like the temple vein of an anxiety sufferer caught stripping by their in-laws.

Fortunately, clouds have returned to our scorching British skies, so let's talk cinema.

Absolutely Fabulous (on the slim off-chance you don't know) was a truly inspired show of the nineties and naughties that saw Jennifer Saunders as Edi, a middle-aged woman-child, getting up to all kinds of slapstick debauchery with her best friend, Patsy; a drunken fag-hag and relentless cougar played to gut-busting perfection by Joanna Lumley.  At its best, it was awesome: slick, sharp, acerbic, well observed, geniusly performed by main and supporting cast alike, and with a hit-rate Morcombe & Wise would've been proud of.

Alas it does not translate to the big screen.

To be honest, the show has been flagging for years, since it ran its course over three or four series, before the set-up got tired and attempts to keep it fresh - mostly in the form of cameo-ridden specials - got desperate, but even the last brief TV run had its charm.  Unfortunately, it doesn't fit the feature-length format: the comic timing's off, set-ups are lazy, too obviously telegraphed and/or lacking in pay-off, the characters - always the driving force of the show - have become obnoxious to the point of being insufferable, and the only thing about the whole affair that works - and will always work - is Lumley (because, let's face it, how ever shoddy everything else might get, Patsy is one of the all-time great comedic creations, and will never cease to be magnificent).

Happily, something that did translate well to the big screen was The BFG!

The BFG was by no means the first of the 'spunky little orphan taken on a mystical adventure by a fantastical being' genre, but it remains one of the all-time greats and most beloved, so it was always going to be a risk.

Riskier still in the fact that not a lot happens in the story: it's essentially about the friendship of a little girl and an doddery old man, and what thrills there are mostly don't come until the very end.  As a book, this wasn't much of an issue due to the brilliance of Roald Dahl's writing: his wit and whimsy kept readers hooked, regardless of what was (or wasn't) happening, and managed to be perfect for a pre-teen audience, without ever being patronising to older readers.

Without this luxury on film, even a colourful whimsical setting, and the presence of giants, will only get you so far.  A slow-burn character piece - regardless of setting - must be carried entirely by the cast: in this case, Mark Rylance - seasoned veteran of stage and screen - and Ruby Barnhill - a twelve year-old girl.

Even as a Shakespeare vet., Rylance can't have had an easy time of it, not only having to spend much of his time reacting to nothing but a ball on a stick, but having to deliver an almost alien language and speech pattern as if he'd been using it for millennia.  And it would have been all for nought, of course, if he'd been playing against a bland, obnoxious and/or unconvincing Sophie.

Fortunately, they are both superb; with Rylnace both funny and forlorn; wise, yet oblivious; and Barnhill mixing child-like wonder with a far-beyond-her-years maturity that at no point felt fake or forced.

Couple that with some seamless CGI, an entertaining and colourful supporting cast and Steven Spielberg bringing his '80's A-game, and you get something that had Rhiannon - a devotee of the story in her youth - weeping tears of joy for the best part of two hours.

In other movie news, DC have released a couple of trailers, and, boy, has the reaction to the miserable dross they vomited up a few months back put the shits up them!

First, Wonder Woman:


Along with Batfleck, Gal Gadot was one of the pleasant surprises of BvS.  When she was cast, all I'd seen her in was the Fast and Furious films, where she appeared to lack the muscle mass to lift a tooth-pick.  For her to not only turn up in BvS looking the part, but be the only one of the 'holy trinity' to show some balls against the Incredible Doom Troll was almost as welcome a surprise as the former Mr. JLo's turn as Bruce Wayne.

Her solo outing - by evidence of the trailer, at least - looks to build on the badassery, not just in terms of kicking arse, but in the character's attitude and the way she caries herself.

My one concern is how long that final moment with the secretary is drawn out, but I'll get to that in a sec...


I will say from the off that, yes, this does look better than Dawn of Justice - the new Flash is funny, Mamoa looks like an interesting Aquaman, and DK appears to be less of a right-wing douche - but I have some serious concerns about this 'footage'.

The first is the same concern I have with Suicide Squad:


Who are these people?

Okay, I know who they all are, and anyone who doesn't can look them up on Wikipedia, but this is the first cinematic outing for most of these characters, and brand new interpretations of others, yet we're supposed to care about a history that will likely be dumped on us in exposition.

Whether it be Flash and Cyborg, or Killer Croc and Captain Boomerang, we're being shown these characters for the very first time (BvS's bullshit flash-drive preview does not count) and are expected to give a rat's hairy left bollock about their thoughts, feelings and motivations.

My other concern is the same I have with the end of the Wonder Woman trailer: there is an emphasis on humour (yes, there is in the Suicide Squad trailer, too, but at least there it doesn't feel out of place).

Don't get me wrong, after the previous two outings, this series is clamouring for some levity, but there's a desperation in how hard they're pushing it here, as if WB, in their typical accountancy approach, has looked at Rotten Tomatoes and said:

"Jokes!  We need more jokes!"
"How many more jokes?"
"Well, we're averaging 46%, so 54% more jokes!"

It reminds me of Microsoft's furious back-peddling following their horrific pre-release promotion of the Xbone.

Again, the trailers don't look bad, I just have concerns about WB trying too hard and heading too far the other way.

In other non-movie news, I'm off the booze for a while.  It's been apparent for some time that I drink too regularly, but I generally don't binge.  On Saturday, however, I purposefully only wanted to have a few, but then mixed that with too much wine, and realised afterwards that I am rubbish at restraining myself after a certain point (you can see it in my gut).  So, I'm giving it a rest for a while.

Until Halloween, in fact (save for a friend's birthday in September).

Wish me luck!

(I'm gonna need it)

Filler

Agents of SHIELD is apparently tanking in the States, thanks to an already flagging viewership, causing its creators to sideline interesting plot in favour of uninteresting relationships in an attempt to at least hold on to the lowest common denominator, thus ensuring numbers flag further.

Full disclosure at this point: this is another post inspired by ol' MovieBob (but isn't all about this):



It's a shame because, slow as it was to start, I still enjoyed season 1 from the get-go thanks to the characters and general set-up. Once it really got going and went all-out in season 2, it was genuinely great, and I was excited to see where it all went in season 3 (though because I live in the UK, and didn't realise till last week it was on E4, I've been awaiting the opportunity to binge it elsewhere).

That said, I was perhaps fortunate in the fact I watched it on Netflix: I didn't have to wait a week at a time to see the overarching plot slowly develop amidst all of the slow, less interesting stuff. This is yet another in a long line of American series that are far too long. 24, Lost, Arrow, Dexter, House, Breaking Bad, even Buffy the Vampire Slayer: in the best of them, the characters and eagerness to see the plot develop keep you hooked, even during the many filler episodes, while the worst of them are an endurance test, if you stick with them at all (looking at you, Heroes).

I get it: the whole point of a 'season' is that it runs for a season, and there's less pressure on the various networks to keep coming up with new things to fill the airwaves, but when was the last time any show had enough plot to remain interesting over its entire 24 episode run? Even season 2 of Daredevil had to pad its run-time with the tedious and ill-conceived Elektra stuff, and that was only 13 episodes!

And the issue extends beyond drawing out a potentially interesting narrative until it becomes too thin for a Michael Bay movie. Though there's less pressure on the networks themselves, there's a lot more on the shows' creators to keep things interesting, and if interest flags just a bit, then the network will be less willing to commit another 24 weeks of scheduling to a follow-up season.

I'm not saying American shows should go the way of British shows, that only stick around for 6 episodes a year (or 3 every 2 years, in the case of Sherlock), but there's surely a happy medium.  

Take Game of Thrones: while not without filler (how many people watched the first 3 seasons eager to see what happened next to Sansa?), nor is it long enough to out-stay its welcome. At only 10 episodes a season, it's required by design to stay on point, without too often meandering into needless sub-plots (Dorn notwithstanding), or pulling the inane trick of having characters act completely out of character just to create conflict and drag a small idea out to a whole episode (Dear Arrow, there's a big difference between layering or evolving a character, and having them randomly act like a douche just to force an artificial epiphany later in the episode).

Another advantage is it opens up the schedule to more shows. How many ideas fall by the wayside because networks are handing out 24-week slots, rather than 10 or 12? How many shows could have been given a second chance? How many shows wouldn't have seen a dramatic drop-off if they weren't dragging on for the better part of 6 months?

Boy Scout Blues

I've never been a big fan of Superman.  I enjoyed the Christopher Reeve films as a kid, but beyond that, I found the more-or-less omnipotent boy scout thing dull, especially next to more complex superheroes like Spider-Man and Batman.

The problem is, Superman was a character of his time, and although he evolved significantly from his conceptual beginnings, and enjoyed something of a reboot with the Richard Donner film, his relevancy dropped off a cliff shortly after Superman II, and has never really recovered, as evidenced by DC's repeated and increasingly desperate attempts to recapture people's imagination:



I bring this up because, Bob Chipman - aka MovieBob - just released an insightful little piece on why the aforementioned Richard Donner film worked, and why it (mostly) holds up to this day:



Now I don't entirely agree - certainly not on the point of how well it holds up today (taken out of the context of its time, I find it slow, clunky, cheesy and a bit silly-looking) - but he does make a particularly good point on how a character like Superman needs to be adapted for the screen, highlighting why recent interpretations since that whole mess in the 90s - not just in terms of the Zack Snyder films, but from DC in general - have failed:

"People are bored of him because he's invincible, so we'll kill him."
"Kids like Rambo-esque action heroes, so we'll give him a mullet and guns."
"People miss the old Superman, so we'll do the old Superman."
"Oh, people don't like the old Superman, so we'll put him in jeans and a t-shirt."
"Batman's still popular, so we'll also make Superman brooding and gritty."
"Okay, we've no idea what people want...so we'll make Superman lost and clueless too!"

While Donner and crew were focused on presenting Superman as everyone needed and expected to see him, both DC's comic-book and cinematic arms have since tried to present him as they think the audience thinks they want to see him.  The result being...



Personally, I think Superman has had his day.  There's still a place for him, but I don't believe that place is as a protagonist in his own stories.

Superman is an ideal: incorruptible, indestructible and insurmountable.  Even amongst his fellow superheroes, he's a higher presence; there for the rest to aspire to.  He long ago reached a point where, to have him flying around punching bad-guys in the face - how ever powerful those bad-guys might be - was to undermine the character.

Better now to either make a genuine martyr of him - without the usual resurrection cop-out - or to have him acknowledge his own status and remove himself from the day-to-day goings on, only to return when the stakes become universal.