The last time I saw a movie in a theater was Harrison Ford’s “Call of the Wild”... all the way back in February (read my review).
A few days after I saw it, life as we know it turned on a dime and I haven’t been in a movie theater since.
I intended to see a lot of movies in the theater last year. I started that effort off right on my blog a year ago.
I published a blog post on Jan. 28, 2020 titled “The 5 Movies I’m Most Excited About in 2020” (it's entirely possible that post jinxed the whole year for all of us — I’ll never make that mistake again). Three of those movies haven’t even been released.
Best laid plans and all, the year went to hell in a handbasket.
I wasn’t sure when I’d get back to a movie theater. I’m sure many of you have felt the same way.
As I’m writing this post, I should be getting ready to go to Baxter Arena to watch the UNO Hockey team take on North Dakota in front of a limited number of “socially distanced” fans.
Unfortunately, the hockey series was postponed because of positive COVID-19 tests involving the Omaha Hockey team.
I’d told my buddy Scott a few weeks ago that if the hockey series was called off I would go with him to Aksarben Cinema to see “Wonder Woman 1984.”
Well, the series was called off and I just finished watching “Wonder Woman 1984” with him at Aksarben Cinema.
“Wonder Woman 1984” was included in "The Five Movies I'm Most Excited About in 2020" blog post.
And for good reason.
When the first “Wonder Woman” outing dropped in theaters back in 2017, fans instantly embraced the fresh take on one pop cultures’ most enduring superheroes.
“Wonder Woman” was a critical and financial success. Director Patty Jenkins’ superhero opus left many believing Warner Bros. had finally crafted a superhero movie that imbued the fun and excitement epitomized by Disney’s Marvel Cinematic Universe.
I really had a good time watching “Wonder Woman” at the theater in 2017.
Jenkins is once again at the helm for “Wonder Woman 1984” (dubbed “WW84” in marketing materials). Jenkins also gets a writing credit on the sequel (her first since 2003’s “Monster”).
In addition to her superhero credentials, Jenkins is slated to helm the next “Star Wars” theatrical film titled “Star Wars: Rogue Squadron” (which I’m very excited about).
Considering all the career accomplishments and positive buzz a filmmaker like Jenkins has achieved the past few years, I was excited going into “WW84.”
What could go wrong, right?
Unfortunately, some things went very wrong with “Wonder Woman 1984.”
The film starts off well enough. The opening prologue sequence finds a young Diana Prince (Emily Carey) competing in a multi-pronged athletic competition on Themyscira against much older Amazon women.
It is an entertaining sequence, and seemingly has nothing to do with the movie’s overall story arc. Prince learns a lesson about taking short cuts in life, and (depending on your interpretation) that lesson may or may not have anything to do with the rest of the movie’s narrative.
(The only thing specifically referenced again from this opening sequence is a “golden warrior” that is the basis for a suit of armor Prince wears later in the movie.)
The movie then jumps to 1984, and we find an older Diana Prince (the terrific Gal Gadot) leaping and lassoing her way around a 1980s shopping mall (as alter-ego Wonder Woman) in an effort to stop a robbery.
Some of the opening 1980s references were a tad cheesy and cliche for my taste. However, the movie started off with a pace and energy that worked for me.
(I was in 6th grade in 1984. Honestly, most of the nostalgia presented didn’t feel quite right.)
Unfortunately, after the first 20 minutes of “Wonder Woman 1984,” things slowed down dramatically, and the story became much less compelling.
It was around the point that the Barbara Ann Minerva character (played by Kristen Wiig) was introduced that things lost steam.
Anytime there is a nerdy/awkward/unappreciated supporting character in this type of movie, you know he/she is about to become a supervillain (in this case, a human cheetah that looked like an extra from “Cats”).
In this movie, you can sense the plot device coming a mile away.
It’s not that I mind predictability in a superhero movie. Most of them utilize tropes we’ve seen before. I just didn't find Wiig’s character (who works with Diana at the Smithsonian Institute) to be terribly compelling.
I also didn’t find the Maxwell “Max Lord” Lorenzano (Pedro Pascal) character to be particularly interesting.
Max Lord is a faltering businessman (a wannabe oil tycoon) who crosses paths with Minerva and Prince when he comes to the Smithsonian posing as a wealthy donor.
What he is really after is the “Dreamstone” – an antiquity Prince and Minerva were asked by the FBI to identify among some stolen antiquities.
The Dreamstone is what all the drama centers around during the rest of the movie. The crystal itself (which looks like a plastic trinket you’d get in the gift shop at “The Wizarding World of Harry Potter” in Orlando) has sort of a “genie/lamp” power to it, granting wishes to those who use the stone.
As I mentioned earlier, the film slowed down considerably during this entire sequence.
By my count — after an entertaining first 20 minutes — they spent roughly 70 minutes setting everything up with the Dreamstone and the ramifications of using it. The entire flow got bogged down. They spent too much time on exposition.
The filmmakers also decided to bring military aviator Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) back, even though he died in the first movie.
I thought the “reveal” for Trevor’s return lacked imagination... and really felt odd. It’s almost as if the writers couldn’t find a clever solution for the reveal, so they quickly slapped something together.
The reveal also didn’t jibe with how other wishes were granted in the movie — where things would just appear out of thin air.
As it regards the Steve Trevor character in this movie...
Fans will recall that Diana Prince’s charm in the first “Wonder Woman” movie came from various “fish out of water” plot points during the movie (as she experienced the norms and customs of World War I Europe).
They tried to do the same with Trevor in “WW84,” showing the character looking/acting befuddled as he experienced some of the “social conventions” of the 1980s.
I didn’t find the approach to be effective, and thought the 1980s setting actually “hampered” those moments. His “fish out of water” experience might have worked better if “WW84” had been sent in present day.
To be honest, having this movie set in the 1980s wasn’t particularly “integral” to the overall narrative anyway. It’s as if some studio exec thought it would be fun to trade on 80s nostalgia.
(My FB friend — and hair stylist — Nicky astutely pointed out that there was little-to-no music from 1984 in this movie. Additional tunes from that era might have helped the movie’s sense of authenticity.)
But I digress...
When I go see a “Wonder Woman” movie (or any other superhero movie), I figure there will be a lot of action.
The fact that there is a 70-minute stretch in the middle of “WW84” where little happens is a big problem — no action and no Wonder Woman heroics.
The action scenes that do happen in the later movie didn’t exactly grab me.
I’m not going to delve too much into the various plot points. I don’t want to give anything away.
As I watched “Wonder Woman 1984” at Aksarben Cinema, I thought about how it might have been better with some liberal editing.
I’ve mentioned before on this blog that I think movies have become far too long for their own good. This movie didn’t need to be 2 hours and 35 minutes.
Yet the runtime wasn’t the issue. The problem was the hodgepodge narrative, watered-down characters, and convoluted plot points strewn throughout “Wonder Woman 1984.”
Compared to another recent female-centered superhero movie set in a bygone decade — 2019’s entertaining “Captain Marvel” (read my review) — the flaws become even more apparent.
For the record, I like a number of DC comic-based superhero movies from Warner Bros. I’m not being critical just because I prefer Disney’s Marvel Cinematic Universe.
One of the recent DC outings I enjoyed was 2019’s “Shazam” (read my review). While I didn’t love 2018’s “Aquaman” (read my review), that movie is better than “Wonder Woman 1984.”
(Truth be told, my opinion of “Aquaman” has become more favorable with repeat viewings.)
I will say this...
Despite serious flaws in “Wonder Woman 1984,” I had a good time going back to a movie theater for the first time in 11 months. (Scott and I were the only patrons in the auditorium.)
I was reminded how fun it can be to watch a movie in a theater.
“Wonder Woman 1984” was released simultaneously on streaming service HBOMax in the United States, and I know some fans opted to watch the film that way.
I enjoyed visiting Aksarben Cinema again after the long layoff. The cinema recently celebrated its 10th anniversary (its grand opening was on Dec. 10, 2010).
Our business worked on marketing/promotional efforts for the cinema when it opened in 2010 (I even designed the initial logo for the theater). Attending a movie there will always hold a special place in my heart.
I should also mention that “Wonder Woman 1984” features an “easter egg” in the middle of the end credit sequence. It was pretty cute, and tried to play on superhero nostalgia.
But, honestly, even that fell a bit flat for me.
At one point in the movie, Diana Prince says, “...greatness is not what you think.”
That sentiment sums up my feelings about “Wonder Woman 1984.” The filmmakers tried to craft a capable movie, but the whole wasn’t greater than the sum of its parts.
It just wasn’t a superhero movie that ever achieved “greatness”...
No comments:
Post a Comment