Ohjaus:
Patty JenkinsKuvaus:
Matthew JensenSävellys:
Hans ZimmerNäyttelijät:
Gal Gadot, Chris Pine, Kristen Wiig, Pedro Pascal, Robin Wright, Connie Nielsen, Lilly Aspell, Amr Waked, Kristoffer Polaha, Natasha Rothwell (lisää)Suoratoistopalvelut (4)
Videot (4)
Arvostelut (13)
I was expecting worse based on the tragic reviews, but it's not that bad. The best part is at the very beginning, with the Olympic tournament of the Amazons, and it is captivating. Then the pace slows down significantly, and there is surprisingly little action for a comic book film, and even when it happens, it's not very impressive. But I enjoyed the idea of granting wishes, it kept me from getting bored, though Pedro Pascal failed to impress me with his acting for the first time. Had I seen it at the cinema, I would have left disappointed, but I watched it at home and it turned out to be okay. Story***, Action***, Humor**, Violence>No, Entertainment***, Music*****, Visual****, Atmosphere***, Tension***. 5.5/10.
()
I was looking forward to a bold, purely female comic book movie with a strong heroine, fearless in her emancipation from the pernicious Justice League. But I was seriously disappointed. I don’t mind so much the weird way they keep hitting each other, or how naively (= eighties style) Wonder Woman is approached; it’s the message that bothers me. It’s been a long time since I saw such a dumb, illogical story offending women, men, children and human intelligence in general. The lesson is literally terrifying - dreams are bad, make good with what you already have - and seriously modern. Gal Gadot still looks fabulous and Pine strangely enjoys being in his role. Wiig isn’t comfortable in her role in any position and, after his praise-worthy performance in The Mandalorian, poor old Pedro Pascal really hits bottom in his role of megalomaniacal loser who (doesn’t) want to be with his son. And it looks like Star Wars: Rogue Squadron is way up shit creek, lacking the proverbial paddle in the hands of Patty Jenkins. P.S. The explanation of Linda Carter’s tiny cameo is really annoying. Now the Yanks have their very own Carry On Doctor.
()
The screenwriters meant well with the motif of "fulfilment of any wish" as a double-edged sword. They constructed a thoughtfully concise story on that foundation. I didn’t even mind waiting 80 minutes for the first action scene after the opening one. When there’s something to watch and it’s nicely handled in the Hollywood way (of which there was a dearth in 2020), I’m happy to wait. As a fairly long whole, WW84 is dramaturgically sloppy, sometimes needlessly slow and at other times too fast-paced, and mainly in its treatment of the subject matter, it’s naïve almost to the point of self-parody. I’m giving it a third star – very much for it’s guilty-pleasure aspect – because of my weakness for Gal Gadot, whom I like as Wonder Woman even more than my favourite Avenger. And for Zimmer, who reaches (yet another) peak here. With amazement and wonder, I listen to the soundtrack every day now, some tracks two or three times on repeat.
()
The attempt to repeat the same procedure in a different retro era didn't turn out well. Whether the main scriptwriter of the first installment, Allan Heinberg, voluntarily left to make TV series or had a falling out with the other creators, his name is no longer involved in the sequel, and it shows. The ingredients are the same, but this time that central thread that turned an adventure fairy tale into a legendary spectacle has gone missing – or at least it's been tampered with. I won't lie, I appreciated the old-fashioned first half, which behaves at times like Richard Donner's Superman, and at times like B movies from the same era (which I mean in a good way). This time as well there are no unnecessary interconnected universes established; instead, they follow the path of the comics in a direction that was aimed at decades ago, both in print and on celluloid. And most of the time, it even works in terms of building upon the wartime antics, because if anyone has almost atomic chemistry, it's Gal Gadot and Chris Pine. How you get past the fact that someone is appearing in a foreign body and how that body is then treated remains bittersweet, awkward, but still genuine and believable in terms of romance, where I believed every word and shed more than a tear during any tearful statements like "I will never love again." But that's where the biggest positives end, and I'm not sure about the rest. I have no problem with the nature and direction of the other characters, since it falls within the visual tradition, but I don't know why Pedro Pascal is being forced into Rock Me Amadeus mode, and why there seems to be about thirty minutes too much of him in the plot, more than would have been necessary for a rich portrayal of his motivation. Similarly, the frequent "educating" of the viewer is glaringly obvious, and there could have been fewer moral lessons on gender or consent, not just because they don't fit the genre but also because they are almost clumsily served directly to the camera. And finally, the most unforgivable aspect: the final showdown and its outcome is the weakest part of the film, as if it were present only to bid farewell to the plot in any way necessary. The action is banal and almost invisible due to darkness, the final moral lesson is illogical, the costumes and masks don't work at all, and most importantly, by that point, it has already extended past three hours in duration; as much as I enjoyed the film, I can't understand this decision to leave everything uncut. Patty Jenkins has fallen victim to megalomania syndrome, and it cost Wonder Woman a satisfying conclusion to the trilogy.
()
If I never saw another Patty Jenkins movie in my life, I wouldn't mind at all. Not that I was looking forward to her Wonder Woman 1984 or was a big fan of the first film, but those two and a half hours with Gal Gadot went by as fast as, say, the Thirty Years War. And I'm convinced it's the fault of a director who just can't handle blockbusters and action movies. WW1984 has an extremely excessive runtime and unfortunately most of it is completely pointless filler. The 1980s setting didn't make much sense to me, the film could have been set almost any time before Batman vs. Superman. Virtually nothing happens, and when the action does come, it's mediocre at best. The only lighter moments are the romantic scenes where the film can lean on Chris Pine. But the biggest problem I see is that Jenkins clearly wanted to make something that would be reminiscent of the first and second Superman. That is, a naive comic book movie with a simple plot, easily distinguishable good and evil, and lots of hope and optimism. I don't disagree. It's just that the end result is more like Superman 3 and 4, which really aren't good movies. Overall, Wonder Woman 1984 doesn't feel like a big 2020 movie, but like something that was made two years before the first Iron Man, when Hollywood still didn't really know how to handle comic book heroes and heroines and the whole superhero genre was still in search of a new direction. And no, I don't mean that as praise for the old-school approach. Jenkins simply made not an old-school movie, but a movie that feels extremely old. Aside from the nice costumes and production design, I don't really know what to praise about it or why I should recommend it to anyone.
()
Mainos