One critic said: Wonder Woman became popular because it was a positive and optimistic film.
My answer: You can make a dark movie, and it will still collect a large box office. Like the same Christopher Nolan movies about Batman.
My version of why Wonder Woman collected a normal cash register:
1. Good choice of actress
2. Well written script
3. Well-playing actors, who clearly explained what and who they play, and what is the meaning of what is happening.
On 2 and 3 you need to pay attention to how well the scenes are built. Actors do not just say phrases, they stand right, gesture correctly, show the right, adequate emotions. Keep in mind that there is always something going on in the background. People go there and they have normal, serious business.
That's how all the scenes are built. I love everything about London. And the front. The art of the director is tested by how he combines real and fantastic life. If he has everything flashing, lasers and phasers in all directions, everyone is flying and lifting at home - this is of course good, but when he later can not properly portray the conversation of two ordinary people, think of what they can do outside the green screen. Almost all the Marvel and DS movies fly by here.
There are no such mistakes in Wonder Woman. She really was at a meeting of the English House of Lords, she really walked around London a century ago, among believable people. She was really walking amongst a crowd of soldiers.
When someone spoke, the rest took a lively part in the conversation, even when they were silent, or did their own thing, and did not stand as a pole.
There's a lot of stuff. For example, Diana stands on the shore, and “accidentally” at the same time the plane “pierces” the protection. Was it an accident? I think there is a possibility that it is not.
Just a few minutes ago, Diana became a goddess, found and felt power. On the shore she looks at her hands, I see them glowing, and then she focused and listened. And in that same second, clap... I don't think it's an accident.
And the battle in the country? Diana fights, and suddenly one enemy falls dead. She looks around in surprise and realizes that he was killed by Steve, who is fighting behind her back. Diana's look is important - she suddenly "saw" Steve, I re-evaluated him.
There are plenty of scenes like that in the movie. And they're not artificial, like the last Marvel movies, where every moment is calculated on the basis of "science." Here the filmmakers really tried to tell the story. We put our soul into it.
It's a pretty honest movie.
It will be a shame if DC does not understand the secret of success, and in the next film they will make Diana and the rest of the characters “dums”, inanimate dolls.
I don't understand the excitement about Marvel movies. There is nothing to remember. real, live films they only 1-2. This is the case with Iron Man 1. Based on the true success of this, and 1-2 more films, they built an empire of "attractions." In which the actors do not play, but “fill” the frame. Being cogs of a huge, but artificial mechanism that is designed by directors.
Wonder Woman is the first successful film in a series of DC films. And he is analogous to the first Marvel Iron Man, because 100% is based on the charisma of actors and history.
As for the film’s flaws, I didn’t like the beginning of the film. First 5 minutes. Starting with the animation on which the backstory of the film is based. That was, in my view, not good. Including engendered bad feelings, because the reputation of the DC films is still not good in recent years. What kind of slavery did the Amazons have? “Cartoon” not only failed to cope with the backstory, but everything only confused. It is not clear how the authors of the cartoon did not notice the contradictions in its plot. I also didn’t like the girl who played Diana as a child, and the whole storyline with her. The girl played badly. The plot line is schematic and conditional. I mean, she's exactly what you're afraid of, but you expect to see her in a DC movie. But then the plot played out and there are no claims. And on the second time I saw the film, knowing the film as a whole, I forgave the roughness of the beginning. It turns out that if you remove the initial bias of claims initially would be less.
I have already described the advantages of the films, with which I began the review. And that makes sense. This film makes me feel positive. I’ve only seen it in movies three times. First time without expecting anything. Second, let’s look at it in 3D. I wonder what it looks like in IMAX. The first viewing was wary, I began to enjoy the film only from London. The other two were really enjoyable. And in 3D and IMAX, the film was still light, ironic, dynamic, interesting, touching in places.
Concluding my review, I want to draw the attention of his readers to another point of the film, about which I can say the following: I have never met a single person who would notice it. So, the scene in which Diana, already beginning to realize that she is not just a person, conducts, quite logically, and believably, a test of her powers. Before jumping over an abyss, it checks whether this is possible in principle by bending the same length in the opposite direction. She landed near a tree next to which stood a bull with long horns. Diana looked at him and started running to jump over the abyss. Meanwhile, it should be remembered that Zeus, her father, often appeared before people in the form of a bull. And the whole scene could be a hint that her father, Zeus, is alive. We’ll see you in the next few movies...
This is the movie. Personally, I am waiting for its continuation, and I hope that the director will not be changed, I hope that the team will again be given freedom and will not be pressured much, that nothing will happen to Gal Gadot, for example, that she will not be proud of fame, etc. As long as I'm calm about Gal Gadot, she seems immune to the irony of star disease. The rest will become clear as the new DC films come out. It is not yet clear that they understood what the audience liked Wonder Woman.
9 out of 10
Wonder Woman at the War Theatre of the 1st World War
I recently got the chance to watch the movie Wonder Woman. Diana, played brilliantly by Israeli actress Gal Gadot, fights injustice in the First World War and defeats the almighty god of war Ares. This scene at the end of the film is the most dynamic in my opinion. In general, it was worth shooting this magnificent movie, it is unlikely to become a masterpiece, but many will watch it, and even review it. He deserves dozens for: (a) a good plot; (b) the play of wonderful actors. Chris Pine opened up for me from a new side, and with it - new facets of his talent; in a new look at the beautiful Spanish Elena Anaya. I warmly applaud her, as well as the make-up artists, who with pleasure disfigured her character, and Elena played just great; c) I can not pass by the directing work, and especially that the film was made by a woman. The company Warner Brothers pleasantly surprised me by entrusting the shooting of a film about the superheroine Patty Jenkins. She made a good movie. Not an arthouse, but a comedy with melodrama. Typical action, easy and very exciting. I never regretted watching this movie. I recommend everyone to watch, you will not regret.
10 out of 10
The great confrontation between comics publishers 'Marvel' and 'DC' for a good ten years, has spilled into the niche of cinema. Admittedly, from a subjective point of view, I ' Marvel' has always been more to my liking that in animation, that in cinema (comics I have not read, this is not our culture). But to miss a separate film about the queen of the Amazons, in our world Diana Prince, and as a superheroine Wonder Woman could not. And the thing is that this character flashed in the previous picture of the Cinematic Universe from 'DC' - in 'Batman v Superman: At the dawn of justice' and playing her role Gal Gadot I liked even more than Ben Effleck and Henry Cavill.
In time order, a separate Wonder Woman film tells a story that begins earlier than when we first had the honor of watching Gal Gadot. We are led to the origins of the secret race of the Amazons and their struggle with the invincible Ares, who will be the main antagonist in the film. Women warriors lead their lives on an island hidden from the rest of humanity, staying in constant training. Diana from an early age wants to learn the art of war, which is opposed to her mother. But the outbreak of World War II changes the normal way of life of the Amazons and Diana realizes that the bloody Ares has returned. Believing that only she can stop his destructive footsteps. So Diana finds herself in our world, assembles her team, learns a lot of new things and even seems to learn what love is for the first time.
Of course, each comic book screening carries the viewer more computer graphics and visual special effects, and ' Wonder Woman' is no exception. And this mandatory component of the subgenre is made very well, sometimes it is even impossible to separate what was created by the hands of techies and what was filmed in reality. This is certainly the merit of the creators 'Wonder Woman'. As an asset, I would also include the fact that in the film graphics and special effects are not the main plan, but sometimes there is still a feeling that they are missing, that you already want adrenaline and drive, or even “Wonder Woman” & #39; strayed to a war film without war. You always expect superhero comic books to have charismatic characters with superhuman abilities. There are no claims to the character of Gal Gadot - he is well prescribed for film adaptation and well embodied. But besides, Ares claims a lot, that he did not cause antipathy, did not frighten his strength and power, did not produce any effect at all. In my opinion, the wrong actor was chosen, although the actor is wonderful.
We should also talk about other participants in the action. For example, the second most important role in the film was played by Chris Pine. His character is Captain Steve Trevor. He suddenly finds himself on the island of the Amazons, where Diana saves him. Steve then brings Diana into our world, helps her adapt and participates in the search for Ares. In fact, such a role is just for Pine: fearless and noble handsome, how not to fall in love with him? I think it was not just the girls on the screen who sighed about it, but also on the other side of it. A good role was played by Ewan Bremner, one of the actors of Guy Ritchie, with his unforgettable appearance. He appears first in the form of a drunken brawler, than added in 'Wonder Woman' a bit of humor. Small but characteristic roles in two famous actresses, but not so long ago went off the radar - Connie Nielsen and Robin Wright, both of them were very nice to see. But one of my favorite Spanish actresses - Elena Anaya in the image of Doctor Poison I did not like. Not only was she mercilessly disfigured, although the actress she is very beautiful (albeit the image demanded), so also Anaya did not get into the role. It was more compassionate than angry, and it should have been the opposite. And for Ares already said higher and only emphasize that he did not convince me at all.
In general, in 'Wonder Woman' there are both good sides and negatives. As for the visual part of the film, everything is at a good level, although it could be a little better. The plot is well spelled out, although the dialogues are somewhat protracted, as are some scenes (a small such pebble in the garden of director Patty Jenkins, who staged in 2003 ' Monster' with Charlize Theron, and after that in art cinema did not appear). And some actors did not fit their characters, which caused the emotionality of what they saw; for example, the final scene of the fight between the heroine and the villain did not inspire or delight (' Marvel' would not allow this). But, oddly enough, 'Wonder Woman' is perhaps the best film of the cinematic universe so far 'DC'.
Film ' Wonder Woman' chic with its dynamics and editing of the picture. The editor really squeezed everything out of the footage. The main role is a woman with superpowers. But the film doesn't smell feminist propaganda. This movie should only be viewed in IMAX. Wonder Woman (also based on the film Diana), walking in her combat embodiment among the dirt and shots, looks very sexy. The filmmakers made Wonder Woman look at the highest level on TV quality 4K UHD. Movie editing at the highest level!!
In the film 'Wonder Woman' Diana was given qualities as beauty, as sexuality, as an unreal force, the correctness of the moral point of view. Diana is a stubborn idealist, naive, but smart, and this helps her defeat the War God Ares and save the world of people. War God Ares is very insidious, and when Diana starts talking about him at the beginning of Ilma, it is perceived as the ravings of a madman. From the beginning, it seems that Ares embodied in the German general (forgot to say that the film takes place during the 1st World War), but the writer and director made Ares prominent in the English headquarters and provokes the British to great sacrifices. The main character of the film ' Wonder Woman' in the course of the development of the plot grows up and understands that war cannot depend on one person. Even the War God Ares has intrigued people for too long and whispered formulas of deadly gases just to start World War 1.
The plot of the film ' Wonder Woman' can be considered quite a typical story of the formation of a hero during the war. After watching the movie, you wonder, “Why does a man need war?” “Is it just God Ares’ fault, or just want to be a hero?” This story, even a little touching, is about war, about its causes, about simple heroes (like the main character who at the end of the film soars into the sky and there explodes poison gas filling), about people chosen by the gods, about the perception of human conflicts as such, about duty.
To follow Diana’s attitude towards war is to see a naive view of the nature of war, peace and people. Diana falls in love with her naive female view of things, and in the film ' Wonder Woman' admire the action scenes with the main character. The villainous God of War Ares in the style of comics is very cunning and cruel to people.
In short, I initially did not like Gal Gadot as an actress. I first saw her in the movie [Furious 5] and even then, despite all the poshness of the film, her presence was more a minus than a plus for me. However, after seeing her as an Amazon princess in Batman v Superman, there was hope that I underestimated her. The opportunity to appreciate her acting, fell on the solo picture about Princess Diana - [Wonder Woman].
In short, the film will tell us about the formation of Diana who she was intended to be. Having lived for a long time on the island of the Amazons, Diana was subjected to tough training for a long time so that she could defend herself. And one day she rescues a British spy, Steve Trevor, from whom she learns that a long war is raging outside the island. And that’s where the most interesting thing begins, because: “When something goes wrong in the world, you can either do nothing or do something.”
In general, the plot of the picture seemed to me very interesting and exciting. The beauty of a solo film is that you watch the growth and formation of the main character. The characters in the picture turned out to be alive, and from time to time you begin to empathize with them. I liked the move, you know who the shithead is, but you don't know what he looks like. Then you start to wonder who is really hiding behind the mask. Movie intrigue is always a good thing. As far as acting is concerned, it is certainly good, and now Gal Gadot is not as disgusting as it was. The rest of the cast, too, tried to fame and each managed to convey his character exactly as needed. I can’t get past all the action that happened on the screen. Apart from the word, I have nothing more to add. Nor did the musical accompaniment fail. It suited all the moments very well, adding a certain charm to them. But there is no evil without good. And there is only one drawback that in the end spoils the impression a little, namely pathos. Yohoho, I'm the main villain and I'll kill you. Are you serious? The movie was going very well until this pathetic playfulness started.
So, I was really hoping for this film and it basically met my expectations. That's why I liked him. I recommend watching. Enjoy.
Definitely the best movie from the DC Cinematic Universe at the time of release.
But that’s not a big compliment.
First of all, Gal Gadot (Gal Gadot) Gul Gado? whatever) chic. Out of it came a stunning Wonder Woman - delight, lust and the object of the pap for boys; an example that can be looked up to, for girls. This is how you write and play the heroine of your superhero blockbuster (learn, Catwoman and Electra).
Chris Pine is also good. When these two are on screen, the movie works. I believe in their romance, I believe in their relationship. There's chemistry between them, both charismatic and attractive, five points to them. This film could have been purely about a love story against the backdrop of the First World War (it was like the First, right?) without all this crap about gods, weapons, destiny and other blizzards - and I would have liked it more.
It would be a good movie.
But no. It's a superhero blockbuster. So, there must be cartoon villains, revealing their plans to the heroes. There should be a large-scale battle between the hero and the villain at the end, where they will destroy the environment and push pathetic speeches. Because we haven't seen that sanguine in 9999999 times! Sure! Give me more of this shit on the green screen!
The last 20 minutes of the movie are unbearable - it's just a shame to watch. Take all the things that superhero movies despise: tons of pathos, the stupidity of what is happening, a mess of slurred action, all the cliches that any person who has seen at least a couple of such films can predict from beginning to end. Multiply it 10 times, throw a cheap green screen on top (DC, who makes you such special effects?) Fire them - the quality of the green screens in this film is at the level of Tommy Wiseau's Room - and you get the ending of Wonder Woman.
A huge disappointment. This heroine deserves better.
Intrigued by his small appearance in Batman v Superman: At the dawn of justice Diana Prince, aka Wonder Woman, got her solo film exactly a year later, where we had to find out where this mysterious stranger came from.
And so, she was an Amazon princess, trained to one day stop a great evil on Earth. And as soon as war comes to the paradise island where she lived, she has no choice but to pick up a sword and go on the path of war to save humanity.
If you judge, then each solo film, where the story of a new superhero begins, is the best in the adaptation of comics. Firstly, the viewer has nothing to compare, this is a separate branch, which reveals the personality of the hero, his abilities, as well as the attitude with which the viewer will continue to consider this hero. Secondly, although the stories of new heroes are not so large-scale and sometimes naive, they are still interesting, because the new hero enters a new world and tears away the new in himself, it is interesting to watch the course of such a story.
As for Wonder Woman, this is a very pleasant movie, there is a spirit of adventure in it, the spirit of warmth that Diana gives, and I do not want to take off from the screen, and then watch the adventures of this woman.
As DS is known for more realistic comics, the same is known for film adaptations. Therefore, in “Wonder Woman” there is little snotty and fabulous (except for the antagonist), which of course will show the finale of the picture, where Diana learns all the sweets of victory and the sorrows of losses.
As a result, Wonder Woman is a successful comic book adaptation, a good and exciting story of an Amazon princess, and Gal Gadot is very good as Diana Prince.
After three failed films of the DC Cinematic Universe, starting with the blockbuster “Man of Steel” by Zack Snyder, came out last year, a successful and first film adaptation of the comic book of a female superhero. The success of the film gave the director Patty Jenkins.
Some may have noticed that the film, in part, resembles the story of Captain America and Thor: about a super soldier in war and about a god who got to Earth. But in Patty's film, these two similar factors are done wisely and in moderation. We are shown the land on the shores of a paradise island fenced from the outside world (why it is paradise if it is on Earth – it is unclear), which served Diana (the future Wonder Woman) as a homeland, crashes an American pilot (Chris Pine) and tells about a serious conflict raging in the outside world. Across the border of a flowering island, the First World War is raging. Diana, who lived on an island among women, goes with a handsome pilot in search of Ares, the God of War. The naive Amazon hopes there will be no war by killing him. There. From the homeland of saturated flowers, the heroine gets into the harsh realities of the horrors of war, under the prism of the 12+ rating. Because of the different setting, Diana begins to behave bizarrely, as her customs and culture are clearly different from the “norms” of the United States in the early twentieth century. At the same time, she does not behave like an imbecile, unlike the first Thor, but rather like a child who wants to try everything on the tooth. However, Gal Gadot was somehow naive.
As for the comparison with the "First Avenger", it is the setting. True, the Marvel film unfolded events during the Second World War. In it, in my opinion, everything looked toy when it came to enemies with rubber appearance and weak recoil blasters. And the war was just a background.
In Wonder Woman, the war was at the forefront. Even literally, in the form of Ares. But everything was harmonious. Despite the film's rating, Diana saw mountains of corpses, life in the trenches, hunger and barefooted children. Removing rose-colored glasses, the heroine becomes more mature and responsible, offering her help, she went to mutual contact and protected innocent people. And, trying not to kill, but only to neutralize the enemy. That's what I understand - a superhero of justice.
Balanced feminism
The character was invented in 1941 by a psychologist. In those moments when there was already Batman with Superman since 39, there was not enough hero who could support the “weak” sex. And the inventor of the lie detector, William M. Marston, creates an image of a female cult for the next 70 years. True, the images that cause scandals, comic Diana were too frank: shorts / skirts and a half-closed bust with boots (as in the film). This is what the feminist society still supports today. In the film, however, the woman is shown not by the stronger sex, but on a level with a man, ready to stand up for herself and help the needy. We are not told that feminists are superior to uncouth men. It neatly showed gender equality without causing scandals about gender tolerance.
There are no downsides
Such moments as walking around the city with cold weapons in wartime, sometimes humor below the waist, collapsing houses like cardboard houses and cotton-wool tanks are full. But I didn't like two things: the pompous slow-mo and Ares.
Slow-motion playback is not justified and is repeated in every battle, which is clearly boring. Especially the invasion of the native land of Diana (which is discovered for some reason after 20 centuries), I was clearly confused: ridiculously flying Amazons (no) on the bowstring, nailed with an arrow to the rock and shooting from the bow to slow-mo. I wanted to leave the viewing at the time. Even the scene in the alley, when Diana stopped the bullets with her wrists, looked more dynamic because of the quick action.
The second thing I didn’t like was Ares. Or rather, the actor who played it (and at the beginning of the film it is clear who he is). I won’t name it because it will be a spoiler for some. But the god of war must be powerful and fearful, and we are shown a never-memorable villain. Maybe it's for the best.
Wonder Woman is a bright, glossy, fantastic blockbuster. It laid a good foundation for the DC universe, compared to its predecessors. For the comic book (I consider it a separate genre) of an entertaining nature, I consider the film quite good, not only because of the fighting scenes and humor, but also because of the message, although it is superficial. But the DC universe is far from Marvel.
P.S. The boat scene is the best.
Wonder Woman is not as famous as Superman or Batman. Together, however, these three make up the Trinity, the founders of the Justice League. And if with men in capes, the audience more or less everything is clear, then Wonder Woman has not yet had her screen incarnation and was presented to a wide audience only in 2017 as part of the Warner Bros. / DC initiative to create her own cinema universe.
So who is Wonder Woman? Diana is an Amazon princess from the paradise island of Themiscira. Since childhood, she was raised as a warrior who was supposed to protect weaker people from the forces of evil. In later versions, Diana became a demigod and daughter of Zeus, acquired a wonderful weapon and joined the Justice League. Wonder Woman, as a character, was born in 1941, at the height of World War II. Its author was William Marston, all his life defending the views of feminism, and concurrently is the creator of the lie detector. These two facts from Marston’s biography explain why Diana became so strong-willed, independent and just.
The film takes the story of Diana’s emergence as Wonder Woman. Since childhood, Diana (Gal Gadot) grew up in the company of strong women on the island of Themiscira, hidden from prying eyes. Raised by her wise mother Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen) and Aunt Antiope (Robin Wright), Diana has always had worthy role models before her eyes. She knew that sooner or later the world would need her help, so she trained like no one else. And when one day a serene life on the island is disrupted by an alien from the big world - spy Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), Diana realizes that her time has come. The world beyond the island is being torn apart by war, and the young Amazon, driven by her ideals, is determined to step in and stop her. It is driven by honor, nobility and the boundless belief that people are pure in nature. Together with Steve, Diana goes to Europe, taking her first steps in the superhero field.
Wonder Woman looks a lot like Marvel’s First Avenger. Perhaps the creators also understood that there was no avoiding comparisons, and decided to move the action from the 40s, as it was in the comics, to the 1900s. And we didn't. About the First World films are made less often, and even less often they make films about the Amazons. Seriously, while watching, I kept trying to remember at least one movie about the Amazons in the last ten years. Only a series about Xen came to mind, but nothing new came to mind. And it's kind of sad, because the Amazons are incredibly cool! Patty Jenkins wants to see more powerful, armed and independent women on the screen. The beginning of the story on Themiscira is a vivid fantasy with many beautiful actresses. I want to highlight the incredible Robin Wright, who wears leather armor and a sword in her hands. And Connie Nielsen as the queen of the Amazons gets goosebumps. And it seems that both actresses are quite famous, both shoot a lot, but really big films with them have not been for a long time.
And, of course, it is impossible not to mention the stunning, irresistible, the most real goddess - Gal Gadot, who manages to show different facets of her character, and even so that she believes and empathizes. Wonder Woman Gadot is the embodiment of femininity, beauty, strength and intelligence. This contrasts marvellously with the arrogance and stubbornness of the male world of the last century, where women have yet to assert their right to vote. Those who feared that the film will be an anthem of feminism, do not worry – this topic is presented here quite competently, unobtrusively and correctly.
And this is the first superhero film, where the war is shown realistically enough, with all its dirt, pain and losses. And if the First Avenger had a kind of comic gloss, which did not allow to perceive the war shown there as a real event, then in Wonder Woman the gloss is minimized. Together with the heroine, we are experiencing the nightmare that has swept the world and with her we are horrified by what people are capable of. The personification of evil here is not the gods, but mere mortals – General Ludendorff (Danny Huston) and the mad Dr. Yad (Helena Anaya), who see in war and death opportunities for their own development.
But, despite the realism and gloom, the picture came out surprisingly colorful and spectacular. The scenes of the battles are put on the look, and although in places of slow shooting it seems a lot, to look at Gal Gadot waving a sword, scattering on the sides of the enemy - dear. By the end, the level of epicity goes into the category of typical Snyder, once again proving that the DC Cinematic Universe is inspired by ancient mythology about gods, heroes and monsters, and all this, at least, is curious to watch.
It is impossible not to mention the stunning soundtrack of Rupert Gregson-Williams, who masterfully weaved the already familiar motif from Batman against Superman into his own compositions, giving them epic and drive. The music is extremely subtly emphasizes what is happening on the screen, and, so far, work in this direction DC I like better than Marvel, who can not boast of a truly memorable soundtrack.
Wonder Woman has already received a lot of flattering reviews from critics and viewers, which gives us hope that soon the DC franchise will shoot and will be a worthy competitor to Marvel. Wonder Woman is the superhero original we deserve - vibrant, lively, moderately serious and entertaining, just like Gal Gadot - is Wonder Woman who lacked the DC Cinematic Universe.
Maybe I expect too much from the comic book genre, but nevertheless...
The film is made for a certain layer of people, namely schoolchildren. I don’t understand how a person with a stronger mind and no cause-and-effect disorders can take this seriously. And yes - I am well aware that without some assumptions in principle it is impossible to watch such a movie, but here it is simply unrealistic even for a second to believe the characters.
Dialogues are completely naive and banal - they are clichéd off the scale. The heroine throws from one thought to the opposite constantly. That’s the kind of thing, you can close your eyes.
Or it's better to open your eyes, turn off your head, and think of it as a beautiful video of Gal Gadot. She's really a miracle.
Besides Miracle, there is a brave spy-spy-smuggler pilot. This playboy and just a nice guy is needed for the love line and to have a bit 'deep' along the way and a bit sad at the end. Chris Pine in this role is good and fits perfectly into the plot convoy.
Secondary characters. The super-team is a Turk, an Indian, and a Cottage (sorry, I can’t take it any other way, because here he played Danny Boyle from the film ' On a Needle'). And if the Turk and played on the disclosure of the plot, the Indian and Kocheryzhka added simply ' to be'.
The villains are a bad tracing to Dr. Evil. And in the scene, when they lock the door of the bunker headquarters and laugh, then in the head of a Russian man unwittingly pops up a mad pilot from the village of fools.
Working the world... For me, the comic is an augmented reality, which means not reworking existing laws in the world, but harmoniously fitting in new ones. How can you detonate gas shells with a wide radius of destruction in the atmosphere, at low altitudes, in the hope that no one will get hurt? Why is the main character in a combat/dangerous situation pathetic or does everything extremely slowly? Such questions will collect a car and a small cart.
I also found it strange to drink alcohol in two episodes. In a step from dementia, it would not be worth flirting with such things, and taking into account the average age of the viewer, it would be time to drink ' Agushu' so as not to spoil the toddlers.
To sum up, I understand perfectly well why everything was done this way. This movie is as commercially verified as possible and if you rate it 10/10. If you bet for Gadot, it is also a dozen. But if you evaluate the semantic, logical message and innovation, then 4/10.
Decide for yourself whether you are ready to appreciate the ruble. I personally don't. With such a foundation, something much more interesting could be done with this character.
What should you remember about Wonder Woman before you watch it? In general... nothing specific. Don’t be afraid that if you don’t go through its entire history (which is 75 years!), you won’t understand anything. Everything you need, you will be told accessible, without overloading with dates, names and unnecessary events.
Thought... Wonder Woman is not just a comic book character with almost a century of history, she is the ideal of millions, an example of wisdom and honesty, a symbol of the purest, undisguised Good. And, of course, she is a model of feminism. We live in a time when the meaning of this term has been erased and acquired a somewhat negative meaning: ' If you are a feminist, you must hate men.' Even feminists are used to thinking so. But feminism is about something else, and in the film it is shown exceptionally noblely from the perspective of both women and men.
The history of the formation of Diana Prince was shown more capaciously, concisely and touchingly than ever. The company was tasked with finding a female director for this project, and it was Patty Jenkins, who gave the world ' Monster' with Charlize Theron. Female management 'Wonder Woman' is the most human film in DC history. Impeccable acting, colossal work of artists and cameraman 'Dirty' and 'Game of Thrones' created a real masterpiece, not like any comic book movie.
Wonder Woman is an idealist whose sincerity does not look naive and vulgar, but, on the contrary, brave. The characters of Diana (Gal Gadot) and Steve (Chris Pine) are people in whom creators, like Zeus, breathed the best qualities from both men and women, and who are not at all ashamed of it. There are disadvantages here, of course, there are, but these disadvantages do not cause the desire to get up and leave, crossing out all the epicity of what you saw. This is a beautiful, as my friend said, fairy tale that can and should be watched not only by adults, but also by children.
39 The main thing is what you believe, and I believe in love. '(c)
The Israeli model did not know, or even suspected, that enlistment in ten years would have an unusual addition. The retired instructor so successfully dressed in antique armor, diluting the dull and pathetic company of frilled superheroes that a chiseled figure gave a chance for a breakthrough. Gal Gadot, called by Russian fans Galka, became a negligent gift of fate for DC. Indeed, you will not notice how you believe in the providence of the gods, the blessing of legends and myths in Hellas is enough for several civilizations. The Amazonian origin of Wonder Woman successfully fell on the fabulous plateau desired by the fined producers, the beauty of Israeli Gali is an absolute thing, it remained only with the director not to miss. Shot not accurately, but heaped - Patty Jenkins shot a little, relatively successfully, and her "Monster" is considered a strong crime drama with feminist overtones. Everything went well, until suddenly it turned out that the efforts of an interesting actress and a talented director for the final triumph is not enough.
Apparently, Mrs. Jenkins' favorite film is "The Devil's Advocate." Is it not from here, by the way, that the roots of cooperation with Charlize Theron grow, until “Monster” first declared itself in a satanic-legal film? And for “Wonder Woman” came in handy ex-temptress Reeves – Connie Nielsen, who tried on the armor of the queen of the Amazons, whose daughter was the culprit of the comic film celebration. Princess Diana, not English, but Tesquire – strong, strong-willed, fearless, simple-minded and naive. Even Lucifer got her own - Ares, the god of war, turned into a malicious brothel and a walking McGuffin for a bright-eyed warrior. Raised eyebrows, a gleaming sword, a reliable shield and a pulling truth lasso on the thigh - such is the portrait of a frantic beauty, too good for both a sinful world and a stupid film. From the combination of mythology with an alternative history, and under the entertaining trach-babachi and branded slow-mo, much was not expected, and praise to Zeus that even beyond the limits of adequacy did not get out. The tape turned out to be colorful, emotional, sometimes witty, and most importantly, not annoying.
For the invulnerable, eternally young heroine, created from clay with love, you do not particularly care, and, remembering this, the lady director stumbled into the picture of multi-grade action on the principle of “maybe useful”. Exciting moments alternate with tortured, the plot almost falls into excessive fiction, and the film adaptation definitely benefited the time period: The First World War in the comic book transformation is not as boring as the Second. For the company with a valiant British spy and a trio of colorful singles, our Diana learns the wisdom of etiquette, the nuances of wearing evening dresses and the peculiarities of dull negotiations. Undoubtedly, the fighting girl is more comfortable at other gatherings - where artillery volleys smoke the sky, and where you can tear up the bell tower, flying into it after a "matrix" jump. Action, by the way, the film is not too pampered, and especially diverse it can not be called. Unacceptable much is held on one Gala, its impressive appearance pushes under the dust clubs of all satellites and plywood villains in addition. Oddly enough, the ringing stubborn conviction of the girl’s words about Ares’ guilt in all human troubles is more likely to be believed than the statements and actions of conditionally real characters.
If in the future someone is going to make a movie based on an ancient Greek female plot, then Patty Jenkins can be relied on. The director has an undoubted gift to declare the ideas of feminism in the softest, most delicate, arousing sincere interest form, but this style is rather poorly combined with rampant comic revelry. It turned out that mythology began to live a separate life from the attracted realism. The picture would only benefit from the reduction of timekeeping, given that in the last half hour nothing interesting is happening. This is familiar to us from past DC Extended Universe movies, and we have learned to anticipate the clichéd phrases of monstrous men who are cleverly animated in one case out of three. It’s a shame to see a great potential turn into a mountain of missed opportunities. Prayers Jenkins and face Gadot "Wonder Woman" took place, collecting a huge box office, but in general, this picture does not reach the level of the leading performer. Naivety is not the worst quality, although unfashionable by today’s standards. It is possible to allocate two hours with a tail to enrich your own soul, but only for the first time.
Wonder Woman is a miracle, and a salvation for the entire DC Cinematic Universe, which will get her out of the ass into which they were driven by BPS and the Squad (unless the Justice League puts her back in). A good movie about becoming a hero. In some places, the picture is slightly naive, as is the heroine herself, who believes in people and that they can be saved. Ask yourself the right question ' are people worthy of salvation?' In the end, she turns from a naive girl into a strong woman who has experienced the loss of loved ones, and survived the horrors of war on herself. Dark-haired Israeli Gal Gadot is perfection, a chic actress. Did not spoiler unexpected story twist with the main villain in the trailers, as it was with BPS. A little overdone with the final battle, and the actor for the role of Ares is very unsuitable, but with armor he looked cool. In some places there was a lot of pathos out of place, which caused only a smile. As a result, DC needs solo films about becoming a hero, as Man of Steel and Wonder Woman have already proved. Too early they started a team film.
7 out of 10
From Gal Gadot’s first appearance in cinema, she never ceases to fascinate me. When I first saw her in Furious 4, I fell in love! ) The same effect, I remember, had on me Natalie Portman, when she grew up after 'Leona' played in 'Star Wars' They are both Israelis in their roots. What a beauty, Mamma Mia. But even the stunning beauty of Gal Gadot and her miniskirt will not make me put above 6 points for this film.
The picture, in my opinion, was extremely weak. Even for a comic book adaptation. In general, you need to evaluate comic books a little differently than other feature films. Video comics (as I sometimes call them) do not carry any semantic load, philosophical reflections or a hidden message to the viewer. Nope. Comic books are a two-hour attraction. Where the main thing is not a finely written plot and the play of actors, but action, dynamics and mesmerizing effects. That's what Marvel taught us. But in 'Wonder Woman' DC decided not to adhere to these canons. Or at least they tried badly.
Of the minuses of the film, I want to note ' ragtiness' plot, disgustingly selected supporting characters (Chris Pine does not count, he quite harmoniously fit into the picture), and terrible visual effects. You can write a separate post about special effects. In the 2017 film, they look worse than in the game’s screensaver commercials 'Warcraft 3' 15 years ago. And what is this footage from ' Warlock' at the end of the film? Terrible. I didn't expect this kind of crap from DC. When you watch movies from the Marvel Universe, you keep your mouth open from the amount of cool special effects and dynamics, and in ' Wonder Woman' your mouth is open only because of yawning. I upset the movie. I expected a lot more. Another example of the most common marketing in cinema, where they decided ' Haipan' while the viewer was warm after the visit ' Wonder of a Woman' in ' Batman v Superman' Again, I repeat that Marvel never allowed themselves to do this, and if they churn out a new film every year, then they are all simply gorgeous!
Just because of my extreme sympathy for the actress Gal Gadot, I will not single out the review as negative. She looked great in the picture.
DC is trying to rehabilitate after BPS, which I think was boring because of the long dialogue and in the end we got a good picture called ' Wonder Woman' Yes, with small joints, but we will analyze the pros and cons;
+ The story of Wonder Woman is not bad, personally I expected something very boring, drawn out, etc.;
+ Action scenes have become much larger compared to the same BPS, most of the time you look at fights and what the viewer wanted to go to, the whole film tries not to keep the viewer in a state ' Well, when they will fight' and do not even let you think about it;
+ The war is shown, as it should be, this is not a story about some brave soldiers of America ' who cope with the Nazis at once two, and here you and showing the consequences of the war, considering the war on both sides, the joy of victory, even small, but victory, especially liked the scene after the liberation of the village, I do not know how to describe it, but it was just gorgeous;
And now on the downsides;
- The main villain, and then after I saw him, I was struck by two feelings: shame and laughter, because the casting was extremely terrible, how could you imagine him as Commissioner Gordon in armor? And I was so shocked when he showed up, I thought he was going to change shape or something, but in the end they left it as it is, and that’s their biggest mistake.
- Again, the rating is 16+, in a war where people are killed and the whole film about the war, not even blood, seriously? The DC universe is supposed to be 18+. Why make it worse on purpose and cut more money from it?
Bottom line: The film turned out good, progress is visible, the lamp-likeness of the scenes without action is visible, the narration is not a big huge nude that stretches for 1 hour, and this is really a good film, only in the end disappoints, and the Wonder Woman squad did not particularly open, although he tried to do it, and it would be interesting, a good impression of the film remains.
Once again, after watching a comic book movie, which had at least some hopes, which at least theoretically could turn out good, I wonder: “Why can’t you shoot normally?” To all of them, even if the creators tried, there is a trailer and a small cart of questions. Where are they good or at least normal superhero movies, where are my Guardians and The Dark Knight?
The funniest thing in the situation is that the director of “Guardians” – Zack Snyder – continues to shoot superhero films (“Man of Steel”, “Batman vs. Superman”, had a hand in “Miracle Woman”, more precisely to her script). The director of “Black Knight” – Christopher Nollan – these films produce, and the third part of his epic about Batman and completely “leaked”. He is such a genius, a genius...
"Wonder Woman" was no exception in a series of failures and "so-so" pictures of the DC Cinematic Universe. Of course, there are good scenes and strengths in it, which, however, are already obvious to everyone. But they are still enough to tip the scales of the cinematic Themis in a positive direction.
I think there is no point in remembering the raped and dismembered corpse of ancient Greek mythology. No one has accused her of using her images for a long time. It just gets boring to watch this marathon in the mediocrity of borrowing.
Of the stupidity and illogicality in the film, for sure, there is also no point in particularly spreading, because everyone understands that the Amazons, who should keep the world, or something like that, but at the same time not even looking at this world and what is happening there – this is nonsense. There are more examples, but it is difficult to describe them without spoilers.
Not sufficiently revealed in the tape characters-antagonists, who at the same time had great potential. Feminist jokes, though not annoying, but do not decorate the film, as too simple.
But even with all this, it could have been a good movie if it wasn’t for the final fight, no matter how strange it sounds. Obviously, this scene was added in order to have at least some superhero action in the film. And also this was an attempt to connect one of the central storylines with semantic overtones. Only this very subtext of such an ending is absolutely discredited.
If the whole film was built on the opposition of two views on the ongoing war in the world, namely: stupid and cruel people destroy each other or it is the fault of one main villain, to whom our protagonist in the trailer says that he will rid the world of him. However, in the final, both are obtained. So I want to add: “and it is possible without meaning!”
It would seem that this is a turn! It's dialectical! But here's the problem: if people are so bad that they're fighting, then why would this movie be the main villain? To help fight? He's like the fifth leg of a dog. He seems to be guilty, but it is all the people themselves, and they cannot be corrected, but he is also to blame.
The movie came out - don't know what.
5 out of 10
The confrontation between Marvel and DC has divided all comic book lovers into two camps. And in my opinion, the confrontation is too inflated, but in fact these companies respect each other, just business is business. I am not an ardent fan of comics, just as a child I loved cartoons based on them, and now, in order to please modern trends, I watch their implementation in cinema. And while Marvel is more commercially successful, I like DC movies better. And it is too early to draw conclusions - Marvel embarked on an independent path with Iron Man in 2008, and DC seriously considered expanding after the completion of the cult trilogy & #39; The Dark Knight'. 'Man of Steel' 2013 was met by many cool - the name of Nolan in the list of producers gave hope for a kind of Dark Knight, but performed by Superman. In some ways, these hopes were justified, in some ways not - I personally liked the movie with its seriousness and spectacular action. Gloomy 'Batman v Superman' and ambiguous 'Suicide Squad' collected a good box office, but critics blew them to dust, and many viewers managed to be disappointed in DC finally. And, as it turned out, in vain.
The film ' Miracle Woman' is a great work on a mistake, it perfectly balances serious tone and humor - something that, in fact, everyone wanted. The film was directed by Patty Jenkins and the financial success of this film in an instant made it the highest paid female director in the history of cinema. And Jenkins really deserved it, it turned out to be a very whole product: without plot holes, beautiful, balanced.
The role of the Wonder of the woman invited Gal Gadot - a famous Israeli model and a lady from the Fast and Furious, where ugly in principle do not take. Back in 'Batman v Superman' I realized that Galya will become the new flagship among the heroes of DC and will also bet on her in the future. Very well she fit into this role, passing at the same time not a small screen test. Well, and 'suit' it looks cool
The plot of the film in the first 40 minutes fully reveals the whole story about the Amazons, and then smoothly passes into the era of the First World War. And yes, the war here is shown very naturally - mud, trenches, crowds of wounded ... To help Gala chose a good actor Chris Pine. Here he plays a spy pilot and, for all his glamorous appearance, it was very interesting to watch him play, got used to the role well. In general, the entire casting of actors also looks balanced - there are no stars of the first magnitude, but most of the actors we have already seen somewhere.
As a result, it turned out to be a very good movie. Yes, you can find flaws in it, but you do not want to find fault. DC fans will appreciate it, a neutral viewer can admire a beautiful picture, and Marvel fans should say thank you - apparently their favorite film studio finally realized that it is necessary to make a solo about Natasha Romanoff.
8 out of 10
P.S. There are no introductory credits, but the final credits are very beautifully made - they are interesting to watch even knowing that there is no usual scene after them. In general, in many ways, the hand of a woman is felt, of course, in a good sense and no feminism.
Heracles changed sex and went to perform feats on earth.
I recently looked at the creation of director Petty Jenkins “Wonder Woman” and, really, I don’t even know where so enthusiastic reviews come from. What personally I can say positive about this film: these are well-chosen actors; a beautiful picture, especially amazing Themyscira (which we have “named” Themiscira); not bad music and, in conclusion, special effects.
Of the pluses, a little more detail (within one sentence) you can focus only on some actors, because the picture you need to see yourself, more beautiful than shown you can not describe; hear music, and about “bad booms” is also better not to mention, at least to avoid spoilers. Gal Gadot (Wonder Woman) – beautiful and naive, is the offspring of the main god of the Greek Olympic pantheon; Chris Pine (Steve Trevor) is courageous and stupid, a scout; Robin Wright (Antiope) is the most memorable character, the only “real man” for the entire timekeeping, beautiful, belligerent, mentor of the Wonder of Woman, with this lady I would watch a superhero movie; three: Said Tagmawi, Ewan Bremner, Eugene “Brave Stone” (whom as they are called in the film – do not remember) – funny, sometimes cute, but useless; actors, playing evil ones, few things are difficult to say.
Well, that's all, with pluses it turned out not thick and then with a spoonful of tar, and why? Yes, because in "Wonder Woman" the script is so "clumsy" that you wonder. For children's cartoons, history is written more logically. No, if I were 10 or 15 years old, I would have loved the movie, but alas and ah, I’m a little bit more. What is the illogicality? If you take one of the few examples without spoilers, then based on the general logic of the plot, transferring the action to the first world was not advisable, immediately lost meaning in all this “massacre for a right cause” shown in the film, it feels that our diva again with the wrong villain “dealed”. In general, the impressions are neutral and, from my point of view, the film turned out to be a lover of beautiful actors, pictures, special effects and comics.
About the upcoming premiere of the film adaptation of “Wonder Woman” not heard only lazy and deaf. But as they say, the larger the cabinet, the louder it falls.
According to the plot, somewhere in the parallel universe, there is an island of Amazons, on which female warriors live, among whom an Amazon named Diana (Gal Gadot) stood out. By chance in the sea near their island crashes a military plane piloted by American spy Steve Travor (Chris Pine). Generous Diana saves Steve, with whom she decides to save the whole world.
I did not expect anything outstanding from the picture, but even my darkest expectations were not destined to come true. It's not a movie, it's nonsense. With disgusting script, dialogue, acting of the main female character and special effects. But everything in order. The script contains so much illogicality, stupidity, incoherence and order already tired of American patriotic pathos that it is simply disgusting to look at, and the final picture just infuriated me. Characters of the characters are not spelled out, so you do not feel anything about them, positive characters are not sorry, and you do not feel any fear or hatred towards negative ones. How easy and quick Diana managed to change clothes that I was a marvel, even Peter Parker didn't wear a spider suit so quickly. In addition, he destroyed the local chapel in one of the villages and went out, as if nothing had happened, the suit, skin and hair never got dirty, as if she had come around the corner of the house and left. Yes, and yet, such an invincible character to look for. Such a banal thing is to go under a hail of shells from various types of weapons, while protecting themselves with armbands and a shield. What happened in the final, I’d rather keep quiet and keep my nerves. Dialogue is something. Such stupid, stupid and pathetic dialogues should be sought. I was especially impressed:
The main thing is to believe in what you do – the protagonist.
- Then I will destroy you - antagonist.
I wish they'd kept quiet the whole movie.
I don’t want to say anything comforting about special effects either. They were not spectacular and not spectacular, there was no visual pleasure from watching them. Damage, explosions, and especially jumps of the main woman of this film - the level of kindergarten, with a stretch, the level of elementary school.
And now the most interesting is Gal Gadot’s acting, or rather its absence. I don’t remember a scene where I believed her character. Yes, she's pretty as hell, she has a sexy figure, but that's enough to be a model, not an actress. I haven't seen her work before, but I've had enough of her role in this film. Somewhere replayed, somewhere did not play at all – but the film in which she was in almost every frame, lost a lot.
I am by no means a misogynist, but director Patty Jenkins chose the wrong niche. I don’t know how much more the franchise will develop, but I won’t be thrilled that the director will remain the same.
Personally, I don’t see a bright future for this project.
4 out of 10
This movie made a fuss. Since the main character is a woman, there was talk of feminism. Since the success of both the box office and critics, they began to say that DC finally got something smart. After all, until now their series of films about superheroes was a controversial success, and many were unhappy. I have even heard of the upcoming Oscar. Finally, the famous director James Cameron decided to respond to the film, and criticized it. Well, Sarah Connor is the only one, and you don't have to think that any strong character has to be like her. It is not necessary to agree with Cameron here. It's a good movie. But for the hundredth time, you do not want to talk about its advantages and disadvantages - much has been said about them. It's more interesting to think about how it fits into the modern stream of movies in general. There are two main themes: World War II and a man with extraordinary abilities.
In this vein, you immediately recall the “First Avenger” from Marvel Studios. But instead of cartoon villains, there are good jokes, and instead of Americans, there are English. Instead of a super soldier from a science lab running around with a metal shield, there's a young woman of mythical origin. It also has tremendous physical strength and a metal shield that repels any attack. But Wonder Woman is interesting not with fantastic trinkets, but with meaning. The main character has the zeal to go to the front and there to use data from above to stop Evil. The power is there, the heart is there, but it comes from another world. She was raised in isolation from mortal humanity, and this leaves its mark on events. In a war with advanced weapons, strength and will are not enough, because there are complex policies. This is something that Diana is not yet able to understand. The film interestingly indicates this contrast and appropriately plays on it. Criticism of human desire for self-destruction is also beneficial.
As for mythology and fabulous elements, they are beautifully executed, and cause comparison with the “Thor” from the same Marvel and with the remade “Battle of the Titans” of 2010 release. It's not worth talking about anymore. There's more important things. The main character is cute both externally and in terms of personality. And the final battle with the main villain suggests another comparison. What a pity that you can’t interfere with the flow of time and change something! If Gal Gadot played in the seventh episode of Star Wars, he could have turned out more pleasant, and the actress from her is better than the inflated outplaying Daisy Ridley.
But the most interesting comparison is the most unexpected. Diana grew up away from the hustle and bustle of the world, and once in the world of people, is full of differences. And if she intends to go to the battlefield, it causes confusion and indignation among others. But she gets her way, and at the right moment, the picture just explodes. The year before, there was Mel Gibson's film about the end of World War II, "For Conscience," and here's the comparison. The main character there grew up not in the heart of the anthill of human civilization, and received religious education. And then, contrary to his faith and the opinion of others, he managed to get to the front, in the heat. Not to kill anyone, but to carry wounded comrades instead of a rifle. He saved more than 70 souls than performed a miracle in the eyes of eyewitnesses. And the film about him gives an exorbitant degree of emotional boom. But Mel Gibson has a brutal war nightmare from a real story, and Patty Jenkins has this situation mitigated by a fantastic shell so as not to injure the viewer. Desmond Doss did not intend to save the world and personally destroy the leader of the forces of evil. He thought modestly and wanted only to do the maximum that he could with his abilities and knowledge. And Diana craves global change, and on the way through the human whirlpool she will have to test her pure idealistic thoughts for strength.
7 out of 10
Wonder Woman is on view. I put off watching this movie for a long time because I was distracted by something else (especially Game of Thrones). But the time has come. Moreover, the film was so enthusiastically received by critics ("10 of 10, goosebumps on the tips of shaved armpits and everything that these days give out when praising almost any hulking or average picture on comics and not only), and I again relied on the principle of "trust, but verify."
Diana lived normally on the island of Femiscira, where only women live. But one day she discovers a man named Steve Trevor on her land. He tells her that the First World War broke out in his world. Diana decides to leave her home to help people.
For me, the film had three main parts. The first is a familiar character story, which seems to give an idea of where the character came from, but leaves questions: why didn’t Zeus kill Ares right away? Why didn’t Zeus create more like Diana? Why was he able to create an island, but he couldn't have a normal security system, shall we say? Why did the trained Amazons, shooting at the Germans with bows, then decided to go to close combat (apparently, “Tarzana: Legend” was watched)? Why is the place where the things Diana needs (including the supersword) are completely unguarded (as in Man of Steel, where the stuff controlling birth on Krypton was also unguarded)? The world of Themiscira shows too ragged and fast, before you have time to dive in, there was time to discuss the member Steve (this is kind of humor). I never laughed in the whole movie. Typical DS film: a sea of seriousness and pathos, zero humor. The second part of the film shows London, the horrors of war (but there is no blood in the film at all) and Diana, who wholeheartedly wants to help people. That’s the best thing in the movie for me. At one point, I believed in the horror of the war and that Diana was a real superheroine (not like Superman, who killed people, destroyed Metropolis, and erected a monument to him), despite the fact that the soldiers shot only Diana’s shield (Hydra and Captain America), the sniper first killed civilians, not enemies. The third part begins when Diana gets to the base, fights with the enemy (no one notices it at all), the action of Steve is as sucked out of the finger as the similar act of another Steve, the enemy openly tells Diana that she can stop him, almost without weapons. If her mother had trained her from the start and told her what she needed, it would have been over quickly. It turns out that an hour and a half of the movie to the base was meaningless.
All actors in their seats. Nothing special, but nobody was annoying. I especially liked Gal Gadot, in which I saw a woman who is able to kick anyone’s ass and be unusually and sincerely kind.
Action looks sluggish. Not a single memorable and exciting scene, too hard special effects (this is the problem of most current blockbusters). Already in the trailer of “Justice League” on Cyborg without tears can not look.) and too frequent use of slowo. Coupled with a lack of humor, the film does not work as a blockbuster or entertain the viewer.
Wonder Woman is a weak film that could have been good, but it didn’t come out again (as it did with DS’s past work). At first I called Suicide Squad not bad, but after re-viewing I realized that this is heresy with potential. It’s a shame that, in general, the skittishly made film received such high marks and box office. Seen because it's easy to lure people to a movie by saying 10 out of 10 phrases, and critics and some bloggers have either brain feminism, or fear of audience reaction in case of criticism of this film. Or both.
Another attempt of the DC studio to the status quo, which of course from the superhero trend a little aside, but to say that managed to wipe the nose of Marvel somehow difficult. What’s more, in the context of her own universe, Wonder Woman looks like an outsider.
Many years after Electra, this is an attempt to reanimate women’s participation in the salvation of the world – there are enough mutants and tough men, then the goddess herself comes and gives everyone a beard no worse than her counterparts of the opposite sex. But having invited Patty Jenkins for the director's chair, having noted his feminist "Monster" many years ago, it seems that Wonder Woman was more of a studio experiment than an attempt to please fans of the comic book.
The film adaptation of the comic in this film sounds only nominal, the authors managed to inflate a romantic comedy from a multimillion-dollar project, this time starring not some lonely woman of forty in New York, but an ancient goddess who became indifferent to the fate of mankind. Let it play a good one in the frame Gal Gadot.
No matter how the vinaigrette "Batman" and "Superman" turned out in the context of the DC universe, the brands of these heroes are promoted much more strongly, and when watching albeit an imperfect film from this franchise, he still finds some connection with the viewer. Who is Wonder Woman? Well, this film is trying to answer this, but I very much doubt that in the midst of the era of the bat and the iron guy, this heroine is shining something promising.
To begin with, I like the DCEU. Yes, these films have a lot of problems, but you can see that they are made by different directors, not like Marvel, where one movie is similar to another and one plot is stretched into 10 films, modern film critics like it. We are moving away from the main topic.
So what does Wonder Woman do? It corrects all the mistakes of previous DC films. Well, first of all, the script is even and in general the film does not sag. In terms of the picture, the film is gorgeous, I note the camera work and other people responsible for the technical side of the film. Color correction is excellent, with this DC films had no problems, as well as with the soundtrack, it is also good in the film. The action is spectacular, although rapid is really too much.
Gal Gadot is just great, she clearly got used to the role, Chris Pine also did a great job. The antagonist came out slightly above average, unfortunately, this sore could not be cured. I also note the humor, there are moments that are really funny, but there are some that you would like them to end as soon as possible, but they all drag on and drag on.
Well, Wonder Woman is certainly not a masterpiece, but still a great film, and as a superhero, and in general magnificent.
It’s about what happens when Zack Snyder doesn’t make a movie on a fun DC or what happens when a female director makes a Wonder Woman.
In cinema, there is essentially no confrontation between the DC and Marvel comic universes, because the battle, like the war, has already been lost and the vindictive & #39; far surpassed their fair & #39; rivals.
Only stupid people can claim that movies like 'Man of Steel' & #39; or 'Batman v Superman' & #39' can have more merit than any Marvel comic book movie from the cinematic universe.
Attempt to make DC more gloomy and serious than the competition – success was not crowned and now the movies are fun in fact ' black spots' in the interesting careers of Zack Snyder and David Eyre.
David Goyer as a screenwriter did not bring anything interesting to the superhero franchise, the Nolans did not want to tarnish their career as writers, because very everything was doubtfully conceived from the first film of the universe.
It turned out that the writers write very controversial scripts, and Zack Snyder quite pretentiously implements them and David Eyre also, and Eyre and as a screenwriter suffered a complete fiasco, although his script work pleasantly surprised even more directorial.
Although of course the fish rots from the head, and the film is from a bad script, but in general, the entire team that is working on the DISS universe clearly screwed up.
Now about the character, film and actress who played the main role.
Of course, the Amazons, based on Greek mythology, looked and had manners clearly different from those shown in comics and accordingly in films, and the Greek mythology itself is even in general terms retold in the picture to put it mildly specific. The only thing that was right in the script was that the scriptwriters were inspired by the philosophical passions of Greek mythology, and therefore they managed to raise many important problems: the light and dark side of the essence of man, the power of love in the human soul, the envy of the gods for people, etc.
If we talk about the actress who played Diana, since her appointment to the role, I have had great doubts about whether she will cope. Still externally Gal Gadot really 'Wonder Woman': attractive face and figure, excellent physical shape, but not pumped. However, models who are trusted with leading roles in films have a problem of lack of acting talent. After watching ' Batman vs. Superman' it swung that she would not pull out an independent film about her heroine, but if Zack Snyder does not know how to work with actors, then Patty Jenkins, who at one time helped Charlize Theron perfectly play in the film ' Monster', knows how to work with actors and this has almost successfully proved. Galya was able to do everything, acting, that was required of her, even if she did not give out something amazing and memorable, but it was not required. The duet with Chris Pine studied surprisingly well, which, despite the status of an actor of action films and comedies, looked very decent in the dramatic moments of the picture. The secondary characters were bribed, the motivation for their actions was clear and the characters were fully revealed. The most important is the successful embodiment of the process of growing up Diana, who on the island was essentially a teenager who did not know life, who did not know what was good and what was bad, that there were no inherently bad and good, and both coexist in all, and being in the real world and feeling the bitterness of loss was able to become an adult and that is a woman. We saw Wonder Teen transform into Wonder Woman, which I loved.
The minus is huge in the climax of the picture and in the main villain. The very appearance of the antagonist was not logical, confused and the dialogue with Diana the stupidest. The actor played the villain disgustingly, the final battle did not cause much emotion. Although in general, the action in the film is good, except for a couple of clumsy drawn effects, when Pine's hero flies on a plane.
As a result, the best film from the DISS cinema universe, albeit not without obvious shortcomings. Feminism wasn’t enough – it made me happy too.
Let’s start with the fact that this film is a typical attraction for the eyes and is exclusively entertaining in nature and for this reason, I believe that the film can not in any case scold and call it bad, because its main function it performs.
Now let’s talk about the movie itself. I’m not a big fan of the DC Universe (ONLY BATMAN FOREVER), but I’m a big fan of Marvel (the fact is that in my childhood, in the stall near home, only Marvel comics were sold, and on TV, the first superhero cartoon was a Spider-Man cartoon), although that doesn’t stop me from watching DC movies, especially if his script is handled by a talented person like Zack Snyder. In my humble opinion, the script of the film as a whole is good, the film smoothly begins and tells us everything from the very beginning, and so well that a person like me, who is absolutely unfamiliar with the biography of Wonder Women, understands what is happening on the screen, and experiences with the character the period of her growing up and introduction into this new world for her. After the superficial acquaintance of the main character with the world, the film takes us into the thick of events, where the actions in the intertwined with dialogue do not make us bored, and we experience all the events together with the characters who were more or less revealed. Just here, I would like to mention the wonderful performance of Chris Pine, who I loved as an actor back in Star Trek 2009. I will not say anything about Gal Gadot, as everyone knows perfectly well what a great actress she is. Don’t miss the great actor Said Tagmaoui, who I know from the series Lost. The two main antagonists are worth discussing in more detail. Let’s start, perhaps in order, with General Ludendorff, who turned out to be such a caricature villain that when watching the film, it seemed to me that I was standing in front of a man with a sign ' I am evil'. Now let’s talk about the serene Patrick Morgan or as it turned out (spoilers) Ares. I really want to compare him to the antagonist from the movie about Superman (Man of steal) General Zodam. The main goal of this character was very serious and in principle very logical, and only superficial people could consider the goal of the main character an absolute evil. As in our film, the main goal of the villain is more logical reasoning than some insidious plan with insidious goals, and we, the film tells us that it is not bad, just he sees the whole situation from his point of view.
The result: a good graphic and visual component, a dynamic plot that does not make you sad, a beautiful performance of the actors. In general, a decent and sustained film within one universe and it is worth watching for fans of superhero blockbusters.
P.S. The review was written by an amateur.
After the average Man of Steel, the controversial BPS, and the frankly thrashy Suicide Squad, faith in DC has slightly shaken. But despite this, we were all waiting for a solo film about Miracle – a woman and hoped that this time DC will succeed. Also after the release in wide distribution, this had high marks of professional critics. Having finally got to this film, just now and watching it, I really don’t understand why this film has such high ratings. It didn’t impress me like many and I consider it a controversial film. And the best film from DC, he does not pull. He's certainly better than Suicide Squad, but BPS and Man of Steel aren't much ahead of him. The praise from critics is greatly overstated, and this is nothing short of a double standard for me. For example, the series Iron Fist, in which there are minuses, but which was not bad as for me, critics completely omitted (on Rotten Tomatoes he has only 17% positive reviews) and Wonder Woman, which also has enough blunders and assumptions, critics positively assess (92%). And this example, to me, clearly shows that critics can be wrong and wrong.
Let’s forget about it and move on to the movie itself. The picture immediately evokes associations with the “First Avenger”. An exceptional team of fighters, war, the death of a dear man. The Wonder Woman is a female version of the First Avenger, only the events take place during World War I, not World War II. The film shows the real horrors of war and the naive Diana, who thinks that destroying Ares, the war will stop. Steve Trevor by the way does not look faded against the background of Diana and throughout the film is revealed and in no way inferior to her.
Of the pluses, we can note: good action (not wow), beautiful landscapes (the appearance of Themyscira is also impressive, the island looks very beautiful, there is a residential city, and caves, and forests, fields), and the dramatic scene at the end of the film was not bad. There is a certain morality: that in every person there is a bright and dark side and in our ability to change for the better.
The disadvantage of the film is that especially the second part of the film, with the adventures of our heroes, is oversaturated with idiotic and fairy-tale events, naive behavior of the characters and various blunders. And the original story of the Miracle – the woman does not show us. David Thewlis as Ares doesn't sound like the brutal god of war. And at the end of such a cool antagonist simply merge.
As a result, we have a medium-sized film from DC, like BPS and Man of Steel, which, alas, could have been better.
7 out of 10
P.S. We are waiting for the Justice League, I hope it doesn’t fail.
The adaptation of William Marston's "Wonder Woman" in our age of gender equality was a matter of a very short time.
With his film adaptation, even, perhaps, a little delayed, but the film only won. Constantly progressing technologies have made the cinema many times more spectacular and spectacular. However, it is much more important that the tape waited for its director and its actress for the main role.
Patty Jenkins had a difficult task to make a film tolerant and at the same time close to the source with all its openly feminist accents, without humiliating or hurting anyone. After watching it, it remains to applaud both her and the four screenwriters: there is not even a hint of terry, or even some excessive feminism in the tape. This film is not about the weakness of men, but about the strength of women, which is not one dexterity and strong muscles. Male characters are not lost in the background, but play with women on equal terms.
So, Chris Pine, to whom I am especially indifferent after his recent brilliant work in the film "Any Price", may not be as bright as in the same "Star Trek", but quite at the level and still charming and courageous at the same time.
But the benefit of "Wonder Woman", in addition to Gal Gadot, of course, still became for me the work of another actor - David Thewlis, who, perhaps, survived his second fine hour after Potteriana, although he played after Professor Lupin already many good roles, and in general very scrupulous in the choice of projects: boring and passable we almost will not find in his filmography. However, Sir Patrick is one of those characters that you will not soon forget, and it’s not just that it’s a role in a blockbuster movie. Refined British aristocracy, primarily internal, intelligence, irony, humor, and brilliantly twisted around this character intrigue (thanks again to the writers!), the denouement of which can not be predicted until the very end, turn this image into one of the key, even if Patrick does not have much time in the frame. But everything he has, he uses perfectly. An invaluable experience for a good actor!
A good villain came out of Danny Houston, who played Ludendorff. In a couple of moments in it flashed something very similar not to the hero Hugo Weaving in "Captain America", but in general it turned out unscathed and curious.
Well complemented the picture Said Tagmaoui and Euen Bremner - without them, the picture would have lost a lot, first of all - in terms of humor and animation against the background of pathosous speeches inevitable in such films, which, however, were not particularly abused.
For the role of Diana there was not one or two contenders, but this heroine definitely waited for Gal Gadot. Having warmed up and tried on the costume in Batman v Superman, she perfectly played the solo: in Diana, strength and touching femininity, strong uncompromising character, determination and trustworthiness, tenderness, defenselessness against the cynicism of the big world were amazingly organically intertwined. By the way, the contrast and “difficulties of acclimatization” between its deeply lost island, separated from the hustle and bustle, and, conversely, the island is densely populated, noisy and bustling, where traditions are erected in a cult (I mean England) Gadot plays no less brilliantly than all his fights, bringing to the acquaintance with civilization a share of very good humor, which, thank God, will not be forgotten further in the course of the action. At the same time, you involuntarily think: there is something in these simple and straightforward advice of Diana to resolve the complex political and other problems of civilization during the First World War. It is a pity that politicians and society could no longer listen to these advices.
About the already mentioned battle scenes with the participation of the Princess of the Amazons, and they in Wonder Woman will be enough for the most demanding, I do not want to say much simply because they need to just see and enjoy, they are so stylish, spectacular and dynamically removed. I had to read the materials on how to put Gadot on the set. The result is very impressive. I don’t know how many other superheroes there are in Marvel, DC and others like them, but the fact that Diana in the performance of Gadot will remain one of the most charismatic and noticeable for me is undoubtedly. I am looking forward to the appearance of Gal in Justice League, where the company is even more representative by name than in Batman v Superman, and not in the episode, but for the entire film. And how, in fact, her character will work in this representative team is also very interesting. Well, then you can wait for sequels - as in fact "Wonder Woman" and "Justice League" In both, I again expect a lot from Gadot: the bar in the tape Jenkins she set high.
I can not but praise the picture "Jenkins" for the entourage and quite decent as for the adaptation of the comic book historical authenticity. What to do, I have a weakness for the fact that "it was as it really is." The praise applies mainly to England and World War I arenas in Europe. Magic and superheroes are perfectly woven into these panoramas and military everyday life.
However, there are no claims to the historical homeland of Diana, the island lost in the ocean. There, too, everything is beautiful and mysterious: the presence of myths, legends dating back thousands of years, magic, magic and secrets, among which the core, influencing the fate of all the characters in the picture, is felt at every step. By the way, it’s time to give a compliment to the “companions”. Diana created the perfect environment for her. Among them, of course, it is worth highlighting the wise life of Robin Wright, who, like her heroine, radiates both strength and wisdom from the screen. What a beauty, of course.
In conclusion, I want to say that the recent film adaptations of comics please me the further, the more. Over the past two or three years, I have not been disappointed by any one: "Guardians of the Galaxy" - the first and second, "Doctor Strange", the latest films from the cycles "The Avengers" and "Captain America", "Batman v. Superman", the recent "Spider-Man: Homecoming". Not to mention "Deadpool" and "Suicide Squad". This is a good trend that I hope will continue.
I cannot say that Wonder Woman caused me a fountain of delight, just a pleasant and easy movie. Such kind and life-affirming action, with a typically female idea ' love will save the world'. It looks with pleasure thanks to the beautiful Gal Gadot and atmospheric scenery of London (and not only it) of the early twentieth century. Humor is also sometimes very useful, it slightly reduces the epic and gives the characters liveliness, and this is often lacking in superhero action films.
The plot seemed predictable to me, trying to hide the true antagonist is banal. And the fight between him and Diana somehow went too easily, there was no sense of the omnipotence of the villain (in comics, this is usually the case).
It's really hard on the villains. The German general is the most colorful and characteristic of all. A true Aryan, aristocratic and ruthless, he at least has an intellectual dialogue with Diana and does something. Dr. Yad seemed to me an interesting character, but her story is not in the film at all, why she has a mask on her face and what the scars under her, flirting with Trevor also did not contribute to revealing the character. The main antagonist in general most of the film appears only in words, and only in the final scenes becomes the acting character.
To spend a couple of hours on the film is not a pity, but to review is unlikely to want.
The power of the mustache or postmodern in the genre of comic books
Before watching this film, I had hope for 'wow' but a rational mind stubbornly and furiously insists that the genre of superhero cinema has run out of steam 10 years ago and nothing new is expected here. As always, the rational mind was right. Postmodern, this immortal knight of satiety, overtook the genre of comic books and the film ' Wonder Woman' failed to evade his clever spear.
The pros are Gal Gadot. Innate self-confidence and determination in the eyes sewed her into this role very organically. It’s nice to see an actress on the screen who doesn’t wrinkle and look for beads on the floor every 10 minutes on one side, but is not a horse in a skirt on the other. In terms of acting, and especially voice acting, I would like to mention David Thewlis. For the role of his character you expect to see another brutal macho a la & #39; sedin in a beard, without ribs & #39; but not harmless and cute David Thewlis with his charming mustache, sparkling through the slot in the helmet stronger than the roundness of the main character.
My favorite part in a good comic book movie, and the main criterion for its adequacy and realism, is the motivation of the villain. And here I exhaled with relief. No ' to conquer the world' and other childish nonsense. Classic in the good sense of the word story about the envy of the son to other children of the father in a subconscious attempt to get his love. And the most pleasing thing about hearing it is its damningly convincing and essentially correct rationale for its motivation. You don’t have to have a degree in sociology or economics to know that he’s right and that Diana, like all of her heroes, is just another arrogant and stupid teenager who can’t see beyond his emotions. A well-written villain wants to believe this case. It was probably the best part of the movie for me.
So the downsides, and the most obvious of them is the script, and it's bad with its banality, which makes it sick -- here's the good, here's the bad, here's the unexpected twist. The characters of the beautiful Elena Anaya and Danny Huston are almost undisclosed and very compressed. The beginning of the film is completely saddening - very compressed and at the top. This film repeats the same stupid mistake as many like it - trying to cram the unpushed in. And Amazon Island, and the work of General Ludendorff and Dr. Poison, and the story of the team of Steve Trevor, and finally the divine backstory - all these fascinating events could be revealed completely in two or three exciting films, but instead all the potential was crumpled to supporting roles, undiscovered and ragged. Here is the love line - thin and inconspicuous, ' for the tick'.
Chris Pine's slightly strained play is also annoying, especially in scenes at the airfield where he grabs poor Gal Gadot by the head ten times in passionate speeches about the corruption of being. How she didn't give him a riddle for me. Looking at his play for some reason, it seems that he did not really want to perform it, as if overpowering himself in every scene. And of course, he was almost unconfused by an island full of women, a glowing lasso and a girl in a metal bikini throwing an APC over her shoulder like a doll. For all the above, our hero has almost a full poker face. As for the game of Gal Gadot, then beyond the framework of a boy-baba with high self-esteem and a sword at the forefront, her game is not remarkable - simple and sometimes even angular and awkward, not to mention a creepy accent. Yes, the emotionally charged battle-cry scenes did well for her, but with more complex scenes requiring more subtle play, Gal Gadot looks unconvincing. Said Tagmaoui, the performer of the secondary role of Samir, and he played much more lively, especially in facial expressions, than the performer of the main role, which can not help but depress. Come on, Ewan Brenmer, the performer of the same secondary role Charlie played in places better than Gal Gadot. And of course, that ubiquitous half-open mouth. It seems that all young actresses have some kind of facial nerve syndrome or something. It doesn't close and it's all there. Doubt sows and the behavior of the characters - here Diana is shocked by the horrors of war, breaks machine guns and seeks to end the violence, and in the next scene she cuts the sword of German soldiers. In this scene, she receives a cut wound, in the next she breaks a concrete wall, she is chained by a tank caterpillar and Ares throws her at the tank - and no bumps, no scratches. And finally, the most annoying thing is the absence of the main character. No, in theory it's Diana Prince, but the action on screen is as chaotic as Wonder Woman's ability - here she's fighting, here she's in the background. Now she is a hero, then a handsome spy, now she is again.
In general, the film drew the motivation of the villain, a successful recreation of the era of the 40s and the formidable look of Wonder Woman. The rest, if not bad, at least not a fountain.
I want to conclude in the same way as I began - in the era of postmodernism, you do not have to wait for something conceptually new from an already worn genre. Another step in the DC Cinematic Universe.
To begin with, the film was not expected at all and was very skeptical, since the previous DCEU projects - Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad were, to put it mildly, not very good. Especially Squad. But when I saw the critics’ assessments and decided to give this picture a chance, Wonder Woman was the starting point of whether I would go to the Justice League or not. Well, I guess I'll have to go.
I liked the picture, unlike my colleague from the well-known company MARVEL, the film ' The First Avenger' 2011 release, looks fresh, cheerful and that is not a little important - beautiful. With an easy and unobtrusive narrative. Especially the debut of one of the most significant characters in the geek industry on the big screen. It was pretty good.
Cons:
- The rapid effect (unfortunately, it was, in my humble opinion, very much). Even in scenes where you could do without him, he was still there.
- Robin Wright (For her age, the abundant exercise and overly open outfits that Amazons wore aren't good.) These flabby hands and open legs repel.
Pros:
- Gal Gadot (Sweet, beautiful, beautiful woman who is pleasant to look at) She gave 100%, conveyed the character and mood of the heroine. Physical training at the proper level. The role definitely suits her, and now she will be associated with this character for a very long time.
- Chris Pine (that was the hero). All the time his character was interesting to me, I watched him. In some ways, Pine even outplayed his partner.
Plus/minus:
- David Thewlis (In general, his villain is very good). Ares in some moments inspired, said sweet speeches, had a certain charisma, but. There's always a but. By the same charisma and scope of epicity loses General Zod (the hero of Michael Shannon in the film ' Man of Steel').
In conclusion, Wonder Woman is a movie that I could. No one bet on it, no one waited, and on the way out we got this surprise. I take my hat off to director Patty Jenkins. She's a virtuoso. He lifted the DCEU from his knees.