After the significant critical failures that were “Man of Steel”, “Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice”, and “Suicide Squad”, Warner Brothers was left with one last film with which to establish their cinematic universe. For the first time, they may have found the hit that they so desperately needed.
Based on the long-time comic series of the same name, in “Wonder Woman”, Diana (Gal Gadot), an Amazonian from an ancient tribe of female Greek warriors, must come to terms with the end of their peaceful times. With the help of an allied spy, Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), this Amazonian must find a way to stop World War I and an unimaginably powerful god.
Rather than maintaining the same somber, dry tone as the rest of the DC films, “Wonder Woman” has instead taken a page out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s books. Filled with scenes that were clearly inspired by the “Thor” films, the film comedically portrays Diana as a woman taken straight out of ancient Greece. Struggling with the social conventions of the stingy, misogynistic world of the early 20th century, Diana adds a layer of comedy that has not been seen in any of the DC movies. Though it may not be very different from the DC films in other regards, such as the over-reliance on Computer Generated Imagery, the humor of this film is enough to set it apart from the other films underneath the DC umbrella. Comedy is an essential palate cleanser in a film so filled with high stakes and tragedy and, thankfully, Director Patty Jenkins successfully managed to include a few scattered laughs, without dragging down the film’s quick-paced and powerful tone and without resorting to jokes about Steve Trevor being a secondary character to a female superhero.
The first two acts of “Wonder Woman” are incredibly impactful pieces of cinema that leave viewers wanting more. Though Diana spends a great portion of the film on an island with her fellow Amazonians, audiences are left wishing she’d stayed. This is not to say that the rest of the film is not exciting, but rather to say that the island was such an interesting location, filled with such developed and intriguing characters that it is almost disappointing if the Amazonians do not return to future DC films.
The second act of the film, filled with action sequences exploring the horrors of World War I and the differences between Diana’s island and the world that her people had left behind, is not quite as intriguing, but still captivating. Several secondary characters are introduced during this act, although very few of them are fully fleshed out by the completion of the film. The villains lack any fleshed-out motivation and the relationship between antagonists feels forced and not very fleshed out by the end of the film.
One character in particular, a traumatized Scotsman by the name of Charlie (Ewen Bremner), was the star figure of multiple scenes that showcased just how terribly impactful the war could be on an ordinary soldier. However, where many films would have attempted to help this character to heal in some way, “Wonder Woman” simply left him as another shellshocked soldier in an army full of them. Although this may have been an well-intended statement about the horrors of war, it simply left the audience feeling as if that story was left unresolved.
Although still entertaining, the third act is left lacking, when compared to the rest of the film.The main issue of the film occurs in the third act, wherein Diana discovered the identity of Ares. Here, the cinematography of the film falls apart. Rather than utilizing the blend of practical effects and CGI that it had utilized throughout every other act, the film decides to heavily rely on CGI with little to no practical effects to be found. The on-location shoots that were so prevalent in the first act are nowhere to be found in the third. The entire act takes place in front of a green screen, where production designers flooded the screen with flames and boring color pallets that leave viewers wishing for the colorful nature and concrete, self-contained action of the first half of the film.
As it winds to a close, the narrative of the film collapses and begins to rely on the same overused tropes as the rest of the genre, from the singular villain in a fancy metal suit to the unsurprising death in the final few minutes that inspires Diana to get up and keep fighting. Although there are moments where Diana is losing the fight, there is never a moment where the audience genuinely believes that Ares would actually win.
Although the third act may not be a fitting conclusion for a film with such potential, the rest of “Wonder Woman” is still enough to render it a great movie. The interaction between the main characters of Diana and Steve Trevor are compelling enough to draw any viewer’s interest, and the humor of the film is just as great as many of the good superhero movies of the last decade. “Wonder Woman” is a fantastic story that not only stars an extraordinary director and lead actress, but also introduces an amazing start to the first true superhero movie dedicated to a female superhero. No matter your interests, “Wonder Woman” is an impressive film that cannot be recommended enough.
5 thoughts on “Wonder Woman (2017)”
I like how this review followed a chronological format. Following the storyline through three acts and comparing the cinematography, plot line and characters was a great way to get a sense of the film. I especially agree about the first part of the movie on the island, I found that very compelling and wish more of the movie was focused not only on Wonder Woman but her fellow Amazonians as well.
Alright. Before I say anything on this article, I just want to commend you on how well it’s written. Your points are really well flushed out and the piece as a whole was a really smooth read. That being considered, I don’t think Wonder Woman was worth the media hype.
*Gasp*
Obviously, I’m super proud whenever any movie, let alone a movie with this budgetary caliber, gets the opportunity to be directed by a woman. It’s absurd how few movies do. But I don’t think that speaks to the quality of the movie.
The film, from the second it shifts focus from the Amazonian Island to what we classify as the “real world”, seems like it’s going to tackle an interesting philosophical question: How is Diana going to reconcile her naive beliefs about human conflict (Namely, that they’re all caused by the Greek God Ares) with reality? And that was really exciting to me, because throughout the film Diana is displayed as strong and independent but also, because of the circumstance of her upbringing, naive. She knows nearly a hundred different languages, but doesn’t understand things about the human anatomy that you learnt in fifth grade health class. And that fish-out-of-water naivety is really one of the cornerstones of her character.
So at the end of movie, Diana, who still believes that she can end all human strife by killing a Greek god, (Kinda like how most American children believe that a pale, overweight man, dressed entirely in red gave them their Christmas presents or that there is a small supernatural entity that exchanges your freshly pulled teeth for a dollar bill) kills who she thinks is the aforementioned Greek God. The cause of all human pain and conflict. And… nothing happens.
Now, this could have been a moment of unbelievable character growth. Diana, now in this situation, would have to come to terms with the fact that issues as weighty as war or as complex as death don’t have a simple solution or an easy out. She would have had to let go of her child-like ambition to single-handedly save the world (which is part of what made her so endearing) and mature her worldview.
But instead, the movie shoehorns in a unbelievably ineffective plot twist and it turns out, it WAS Ares all along. (It was that guy! Remember, the one that you kinda saw for maybe three to five minutes. What a twist!) So Diana kills the real Ares, and soldiers from either side of WW1 hug each other. That’s not a typo, the two of sides of what was, at that point, the deadliest war in human history, hugged each in front of a sunset like they were in a scene from a “Walk to Remember”.
The media really celebrated this movie as some-sort of feminist picture, but I think the ending almost entirely undermines that. It’s all very lowest common denominator, the message being: Women are indestructible. (Literally) That, coupled with an resolution that doesn’t force the protagonist (the feminist icon) to think and mature, is patronizing.
The feminist agenda isn’t that women are infallible, it’s that woman are human. And Patty Jenkins has made movies that encompass that point real well,
this just isn’t one of them.
And I don’t know if that’s because there was no female writers on the project, but I’m sure that wasn’t helping.
Also, kudos to anyone who makes it to the bottom of this. Appreciate ya.
I did!
I watched Wonder Woman with my friends when it first came out in theaters and I have to say I agree with most of your points. The villains in this movie, like most other super villains, are only motivated by superficial desires such as greed, desire for power, etc… Ares didn’t even have a purpose to be evil, he just wanted to purge humanity. As for the final battle with Ares, the general rule for all super hero movies is that the good guys win in the end. Even if the producers used their entire budget on the final battle, I don’t think any viewer would believe Diana would lose. Besides, the opening scene pretty much tells everyone Diana won that fight. I agree that Ares using a metal suit was underwhelming though. I mean he is a god after all.