Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    rec.arts.sf.movies    |    Discussing SF motion pictures    |    28,343 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 27,312 of 28,343    |
|    J. Clarke to All    |
|    Re: A quick review of Wonder Woman    |
|    06 Jun 17 22:31:18    |
      From: j.clarke.873638@gmail.com              In article <555ff9e8-cd07-4a56-b049-bfa6818fe515@googlegroups.com>,       jrs9jrs9@gmail.com says...       >       > Some thoughts -- all spoilers.       > x       > x       > x       > x       > x       > x       > x       > x       > x       > x       > x       >       > I really enjoyed the movie; one of the better superhero films made and       certainly a redemption for DC for the tepid BvS.       >       > Well written, for the most part, and acted with restraint; it would have       been easy to go way over board with the themes in the movies. The Amazons are       powerful but not invulnerable, which was a bit of a surprise. The       introduction of Diana to English        society and the overwhelming maleness of the war office could have turned into       a rant or a sorrowful display of misogyny but the interactions was handled       well and with humor. That was a bit unexpected, all the humor,       bordering almost on slapstick at times, especially Diana double-entendring       question about Steve's watch.       > One thing of interest: the label "Wonder Woman" is never used in the movie.        WW is called Diana, Princess Diana, or Diana Prince, and that's it. I was       cringingly expecting that at some point Steve or one of his buddies would       having watched Diana in        full gear to say a la Lois Lane, "why you must be some kind of..       wonder...woman" or something to that effect. Thankfully no, and I hope the       character is never referred to by that silly name.       >       > Now as the less-well written part: the finale. I guess a movie like this       has to have a slam-bang blow-everything-up last act involving the main heroine       and the super villain and perhaps a sacrifice along the way for inspiration       for the heroine, but        this is rather boilerplate and WW just went along with it. It was great to       see David Thewlis turn out to be Ares (especially as he is currently       co-starring in Fargo right now), but the writers just ripped off Magneto       shamelessly, right down to the helmet, levitating, and ability to toss around       heavy objects just with his mind. Calling on lightning was his one big       innovation. And poor Steve's sacrifice; I guess it was necessary to give       Diana that final psychic energy        to defeat Ares, but still, there must have been parachutes in the plane,              This was World War I. Parachutes were very new--the first successful jump       from an airplane took place only 3 years before the war started and the       Germans did not start making them standard issue until the last year of the       war. So it is not a given that there were parachutes in the airplane.              > they were in Belgium and the plane was plenty stocked with fuel enough to       > take it over the North Sea and let Steve parachute to safety, but nope he       > blows himself up along with the poison gas. I do say though that Steve's       > expression when he knew he had the plane to himself and his initial       > hesitation to destroy himself was played so well. And Gail              Gal. Not Gail. Gail is also of Hebrew origin but it is a different word       from Gal.              > Gadot, i did       > not notice this when I saw BvS but she could be Angeline Jolie's younger       > sister and I bet if this movie came out twenty years ago she'd have       > played Diana. Gadot handled the role carefully, her naivety of the ways       > of the human world and her slow initiation to the fact that evil exists       > outside of any one individual came off as believable.       >       > Question: Is Diana invulnerable? We see her toss around many heavy objects,       > like a tank, and destroy buildings and such, she could leap with the       > force of the Hulk, she has the force to hold off with her shield the       > force of several machine guns firing at her, and I wonder if the forearm       > shields were more for show but she did not know that. She is not an       > Amazon per se and what powers did Zeus actually give her? I think we did       > not want to see bullets bouncing off of her like with Superman but I       > wonder if they could.              We have that only a god can kill a god and she killed a god so . . .              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca