'Wonder Woman 1984' Review

Synopsis: Fast forward to the 1980s as Wonder Woman squares off against Maxwell Lord and the Cheetah.

Runtime: 151 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for sequences of action and violence)

Who should see it? Fans of DC Comics and Wonder Woman.

Helmed by returning Wonder Woman director Patty Jenkins who co-wrote the screenplay with Geoff Johns and Dave Callaham, Diana Prince's second solo outing has shaken things up drastically. As the title suggests, Wonder Woman 1984 is set nearly seventy years after its predecessor and introduces a whole new cast of supporting characters. Lately, Hollywood seems hellbent on integrating 80s pop culture references into just about everything (i.e., Stranger Things, Ready Player One, and It, among other things). Therefore, I was a bit nervous that Wonder Woman 1984 might rely too heavily on the novelty of nostalgia. Well, I'm pleasantly surprised to report there were no popular 80s songs forced in the soundtrack, and there's even a story basis for the film's setting, so it's more than a gimmick. 

The 80s were a decade of mass consumerism, and that distinctive quality of the era ties right into Wonder Woman 1984's central message. The sequel is all about the pursuit of our greatest desires and begs the question of what we are willing to sacrifice to obtain the thing we covet most. What I found very interesting about this dilemma was how Jenkins and company forced their selfless heroine to face the consequences of making a selfish choice. This conflict offered Diana a compelling arc and served as a natural continuation of her story. It was also refreshing to see her feeling at ease in man's world after being a fish out of water in the first film. On that note, the mysterious return of Steve Trevor signifies a role reversal between the two since Trevor's not very well acquainted with the culture of the 1980s.

I was very skeptical about Chris Pine's return considering his character's state at the end of Wonder Woman. While dealing with comic book characters offers a degree of freedom to make creative decisions like this, doing so shouldn't come at the risk of undermining the dramatic weight of Steve's previous choices. However, the logic behind his sudden reappearance was held up within this fictional universe's confines and served the story. Jenkins, Johns, and Callaham totally made it work and found a unique way to incorporate it into the narrative, so consider me pleasantly surprised.

Jenkins once again delivers some exhilarating action with the backing of a great technical crew. The stunt choreographers notably found creative ways to implement Wonder Woman's Lasso of Truth in the major set pieces. Wonder Woman 1984 improves on the original with more clearly defined villains and a focused third act confrontation. That said, I found the use of slow-motion excessive at times, whereas it didn't bother me in the first film. The dialogue mixing also seemed uneven as I saw the movie in IMAX, but many of the lines still sounded very quiet. I could understand what was being said for the most part but thought the dialogue could have been amplified even more. 

I applaud the marketing department for preserving most plot details but thought the beginning of the film seemed aimless as audiences are left in the dark about the greater plot. Once things clicked together around the midway point, I understood the setup better and am curious to see what I think with repeat viewings. Two other things that stood out to me were that the film wasn't quite as visually stimulating as its predecessor and I was also initially underwhelmed by Hans Zimmer's score. This is primarily because I hold Zimmer in very high regard as one of the best film composers working today, so I hold him to a higher standard. While his Wonder Woman theme is still incredible, the remainder of his music doesn't measure up. Again, I could feel differently after settling in with it, but these are my initial thoughts. 

In many ways, Wonder Woman 1984 exceeds its predecessor while maintaining the qualities of this iteration that first endeared audiences. Front and center, Gal Gadot remains a charismatic lead and continues to embody Diana's virtuous traits. This time around, Gadot showcases much more range with an emotionally-charged arc. An advantage of bringing back Chris Pine as Steve Trevor is that the chemistry between him and Gadot carries over from the first film. Pine persists to be a likable love-interest and charming presence, bringing levity and heart aplenty to the proceedings.

Joining the cast, Kristen Wiig's Barbara Minerva makes an interesting foil to Diana. Wiig's awkward quirkiness warms your heart before her character's tragic descent seemingly squanders that goodwill. Wiig handles both extremes with poise, never falling into the trappings of a stereotype. You truly ache for her as she becomes the villainess Cheetah. 

The other prominent addition is Pedro Pascal as Maxwell Lord, an eccentric TV personality-turned-businessman. Recently, Pascal has had his face covered for much of The Mandalorian, which at times hinders that performance. However, here, he's as expressive as can be. Pascal's star power takes care of the character's magnetic presence, a front for Lord's bubbling insecurities. Though he's not wearing a physical helmet, Pascal still gets to gallivant around with a metaphorical mask. Going into Wonder Woman 1984, I had an idea of who his character might actually be that proved incorrect, so I was glad the movie kept me on my toes. Based on Ares's shortcomings in Wonder Woman, the depth and dimension of Maxwell Lord really took me off guard. Pascal makes for a compelling antagonist, who I'd consider one of the DCEU's best thus far! Here's hoping he has more opportunity to emote on The Mandalorian.

Without a doubt, my favorite characteristic of Jenkins' Wonder Woman films is how unabashedly sentimental they are. This franchise wears its heart on its gauntlets and attests to the value of love and compassion. It's fitting for Wonder Woman 1984 to release amidst a pandemic and the holiday season due to its hopeful message. Whether you see it in theaters or HBO Max when it releases on Christmas day, you're sure to enjoy the latest adventure headlined by DC's quintessential heroine. Wonder Woman 1984 just might be my new favorite entry in the DCEU. At the very least, it's neck-and-neck with its predecessor. I was already eagerly awaiting Patty Jenkins' recently announced Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, but I cannot wait to see what she does three years from now in a galaxy far, far away... 

Film Assessment: A-

'The Equalizer 2' Review

The Equalizer 2 shadows the mysterious and elusive former black ops operative Robert McCall as he goes above and beyond to serve justice on behalf of the powerless and oppressed. When those closest to McCall are put in harms way and matters get personal, McCall sets off on a warpath to find the individuals responsible and make them pay. 

Chronicling the second chapter of McCall's story, director Antoine Fuqua and screenwriter Richard Wenk each reprise their respective duties from The Equalizer. Over the span of Washington's forty-one year acting career, he's yet to play the same part twice... Till now. Believe it or not, but The Equalizer 2 is actually the first sequel for both Fuqua and celebrated actor Denzel Washington in addition to being their fourth collaboration together. Once you've taken that information in consideration, it's easy to imagine that Fuqua and Washington are very selective about their projects. They are both respected names in Hollywood after all... Therefore, it would seem reasonable that they each saw potential in Wenk's script that compelled them to return. Because why else would you go down the sequel route?...

Well, after seeing The Equalizer 2, I think their reasoning was much simpler... A nice paycheck seems to have been the primary incentive for this series continuation which is jam-packed with problems. First and foremost, the sequel centers around an unfocused narrative that's bogged down by a plethora of plot lines, lots of location hopping, an abundance of action clichés, and the blandest baddies I've seen in awhile. The plot also unravels at a plodding, methodical pace so large stretches of the film are unbelievable boring. There are certainly spurts of action here and there, but none of the activity is interesting enough to leave much of an impression. The action is not particularly well-shot or edited either, which made the fight choreography difficult to follow and left me with a headache as opposed to a grin. 

There's also a persisting question as to why the characters behave the way they do. The climactic action set-piece takes place during a full blown hurricane as the beachfront town's been evacuated, and I wondered who in their right mind would willingly follow someone into such a storm. Of course, the antagonists do so with the typical "tying up loose ends" motivation, but I didn't quite buy that as a compelling enough reason... Additionally, the storm made for such a drab background that it was very tiring to watch, and the occasional poor green-screen work didn't help matters. 

Furthermore, Robert McCall is a Lyft driver this time around. This functions as a plot device for McCall to interact with members of the surrounding community and as the shameless product placement you're suspecting it to be. There's even a bit about a five star rating that simultaneously warrants a chuckle and an eye-roll, in that exact order. It just felt odd to watch this second installment bend over backwards to prominently showcase the Lyft logo when it previously employed McCall at a knock-off Home Depot. The first film avoided the idea of intentional product placement altogether, but the sequel succumbs to shamelessly promoting actual companies far too quickly and far too easily. 

An element that The Equalizer 2 does carry over from its predecessor is McCall being a proactive member of his community. Of course, it would be tremendously difficult to abandon this idea since it's the very essence of the character, but stranger things have happened. Anyways, this becomes somewhat problematic whenever these threads interfere with the overarching plot. There are certainly some occasional heartwarming beats, but these are few and far between in this bloated sequel. They often feel like unnecessary detours and don't quite work in execution. The first film did a much better job integrating McCall's mentorship into the ongoing story because it tied into everything else. 

Surely, Denzel made a difference though, right? Well, yes and no... Denzel Washington doesn't really ever turn in a poor portrayal, but I'd consider this to be one of his most average performances yet. Washington has a natural charm and gravitas that instantly elevates any material he's given, so so he's convincing as both a cold-blooded killer and an astute mentor. It's the script that really lets him down because his character doesn't really experience any growth and Washington rarely gets an opportunity to showcase his ability or range. Acting alongside him, Ashton Sanders does a fine job as troubled teenage Miles Whittaker. Washington and Sanders have a solid rapport with one another so the surrogate father/son relationship is especially convincing, but the subplot itself is uninteresting and uneventful.

In the supporting ranks, recognizable actors such as Pedro Pascal, Melissa Leo, and Bill Pullman are totally wasted. Pascal has very little screentime or personality, which cripples his character almost entirely. If you've seen the trailers, you might know what happens to Leo, and then Pullman's completely forgotten about at the end. 

In an effort to achieve true balance within the franchise, The Equalizer 2 is as equally mundane as the first film was entertaining. In other words, you can expect this action-thriller to be a tedious use of two hours.

Film Assessment: C-

'Kingsman: The Golden Circle' Review

I was surprised to see how divisive this movie wound up being (currently standing with a 51% Rotten Tomatoes score), so I'm going to have spoiler areas to discuss some specifics in more detail. There will be clear spoiler warnings to mark these as a means of forewarning those who've yet to watch Kingsman: The Golden Circle.

[This review was originally written in September 2017 and is now being published to coincide with the digital home media release. For an explanation of this, visit my Fall 2017 Important Update post.] 

Kingsman: The Golden Circle revolves around Eggsy approximately a year after the events of The Secret Service. When disaster strikes Kingsman headquarters in the form of an egomaniacal drug lord named Poppy, Eggsy and the remnants of Kingsman must align themselves with their American cousins in order to save the world once more. 

Matthew Vaughn circled back to write and direct the spy sequel, once again receiving some assistance in the screenplay department from Jane Goldman. Since The Golden Circle managed to wrangle together much of the same behind-the-camera talent from The Secret Service, I was hoping the sequel might be able to stand toe-to-toe with the fantastic first film. Unfortunately, that wasn't necessarily the case. Instead, I was quite shocked to see The Golden Circle face such a mostly-mixed critical reception. While I don't agree with the general consensus, I can certainly concede that The Golden Circle wasn't quite as great as The Secret Service.

However, I don't think a sequel succeeds simply by surpassing the original. While that is the ideal scenario, it's an uncommon occurrence. When I see an action-packed blockbuster sequel, I hope to to be entertained and I felt Kingsman: The Golden Circle flourished in that regard. I first saw the film in an early screening, as a part of my fall internship, and enjoyed it enough to then pay and see it a second time in IMAX opening weekend. Trust me when I say it doesn't happen too terribly often that I watch something more than once the same week of release. 

Any-who, on a technical level The Golden Circle is superbly shot, exceptionally edited, and the film moves at a fun, brisk pace. The one downfall is that the visual effects work in the CG-reliant action sequences aren't always up to snuff; but even at their worst, the effects are still sufficient and not too distracting. Meanwhile, Vaughn doubles down on his stylized sensibilities this time around, injecting a frenetic vitality into every second of action fueled by an upbeat soundtrack. Even though The Golden Circle's action sequences never quite measure up to the church massacre sequence from the first, the film has an exuberant opening car chase and the insanity goes full throttle from that point on with a bonkers buckaroo bar brawl, a spellbinding shootout, and an insane all-out assault to cap things off. 

One of the common complaints regarding The Golden Circle was that the sequel was too far-fetched. To those griping, I ask this "Did you not watch The Secret Service?" For me, absurdity has seemed to be the whole point of this franchise. The Secret Service kept itself in a relatively restricted reality that progressively loosened the confines of this fictional world till there no longer were any confines. At the start of The Golden Circle, the can of worms has already been opened as we'd seen the glorious church massacre and the hosts of exploding heads. It's difficult for me to imagine The Golden Circle would then regress backwards to sensible surroundings, especially when you take into account that this franchise is inspired by classic Bond, with this installment tipping its cap to Roger Moore in particular.

So yes, this film gets absurd at times and I think that's perfectly okay. I'm not expecting a movie about international spies to remain grounded from start-to-finish, especially since the franchise is based off a comic book. In the case of Kingsman, I excuse the ridiculousness because I'm invested in the characters and the action commanded my attention. In regards to the story itself, Vaughn and Goldman do a swell job tying up loose threads from the first, advancing the plot, and simultaneously laying the groundwork for promising possibilities later on down the road. Vaughn and Goldman make an interesting addition to the world of Kingsman in the form of the Statesman. The American spin on the Kingsman agency allow for plenty of laughs and are an interesting expansion on the global intelligence community, but the plot does sometimes suffer from their inclusion.

While I think Vaughn and Goldman succeeded in progressing with a fun, outlandish spy venture, The Golden Circle does sometimes suffer from feeling too formulaic at times. This is largely because the villain is another eccentric antagonist with a henchman who has a weaponized appendage and a plan involving the sale/distribution of some product that will spell doom for many. The parallels are then made abundantly clear by countless call-backs to the original. However, these references found a nice, natural niche in the narrative rather than coming across as forced. 

**Spoiler Warning**

In particular, I actually liked how Eggsy wound up in a committed relationship with Tilde, the Swedish princess from the first film. The relationship took me aback, because I didn't realize they'd be carrying forward with that plot point, but I like how it distances Eggsy from Bond. Where Bond typically moves on from his woman without a second thought, Eggsy's actually interested in forming and maintaining a romantic relationship. I found that to be a nice twist on the traditional gentleman spy archetype and was glad they incorporated it into the plot.

As for my problems, I wasn't a fan of the way Roxy quickly got one-offed and how it was just brushed over. I'm guessing this was done because Vaughn wanted to loop in the Statesman and bring back Harry, but I think they could have still made it work. It's not like many of the Statesman had much to do either, considering Channing Tatum, Jeff Bridges, and Halle Berry had relatively reduced roles in comparison to how the Statesman were being thrown around in the marketing for The Golden Circle. Who knows though? Roxy could turn out to have somehow miraculously survived in the next one! For the time being, I'm a bit bothered by it though...

When it comes to the return of Harry Hart, I found the explanation for his survival to be quite convenient. The Statesman just so happened to arrive right after he was shot in the face and have an "alpha gel" that was able to repair any damage. I suppose it works for the purposes of quickly explaining how he's alive, but I'm still not sure it was entirely necessary for his character to come back to begin with. I wasn't opposed to seeing him reappear per say, but I felt they could have dedicated his screen time towards some of the underutilized characters I just mentioned or at least come up with a better explanation for his return. Otherwise, I was happy enough to see him back in the mix.

I thought it was intriguing they took one of the top agents of Kingsman and subverted audience expectations by making him clumsy and unrefined after recovering from amnesia. On the subject of amnesia, I liked how it took time for Harry to recall everything as opposed to healing immediately. I think many people are wondering where the heck the whole butterfly thing came from, but the idea Harry's interested by butterflies is planted in the original. When Eggsy's visiting Harry's home, there are MANY butterflies decorating the wall so it's not like the lepidopterist subplot came out of nowhere. My one issue with his character though, was that he seemed to become a proficient agent again just before the third act without much explanation. If they hadn't devoted so much screen time to explaining his return and recovery, I probably wouldn't have been as bothered, but it just came across as sloppy, storytelling to me.

Another thing that bothered me was a subplot shoehorned into the story seemingly for the sake of ridiculing Donald Trump. It's not that I'm bothered by mockery of Trump, considering I see it on a daily basis all over social media, but I didn't feel the political agenda warranted its place in this movie. I'd understand if the entire plot had political undertones and it serviced the storyline, but that's not really the case and it just stood to bloat the film's running time. Although, I suppose Vaughn felt he had to make it up to Democratic audiences for blowing up Obama's head in the last one. 

Then there's one scene that I'm sure will be controversial where Eggsy has to seduce a girl in order for them to locate Poppy and find a cure to the Blue Rash. It's rather risqué to say the least, but stands in accordance with one of the predecessors' contentious scenes, so I wasn't really bothered by it. One thing that's probably being overlooked in favor of viewing the moment as misogynistic is how it brought about a crisis of conscience for Eggsy. He wants to remain faithful to Tilde, but at the same time he knows he needs to plant this tracker to help save the world. Sure, it was unnecessary, but it did show some maturity on Eggsy's behalf and I liked that touch. 

**End of spoilers**

Among the ensemble, Taron Egerton once again channels a suave, charming sensibility into Eggsy that enables him to stand his ground opposite established talent. Egerton imbues Eggsy with such confidence and charisma that you can't help but be drawn towards the character. Alongside Egerton, Mark Strong turns in a prime performance as Merlin. Strong manages to elicit lots of laughs thanks to commendable comedic timing and even strings out some heartfelt emotional beats I didn't see coming. Meanwhile, Colin Firth puts his all into resurrecting Harry Hart by breathing new life into the character with a surprisingly layered performance. There's not much I can say without spoiling the film, so if you're wondering what all I thought of his return; watch the film and come back to check out the spoiler section above! 

Now for the woefully underutilized Statesman... Halle Berry, Channing Tatum, and Jeff Bridges are all billed as being a big part of The Golden Circle. They're on ALL the posters and trailers relating to The Golden Circle, but sadly none of these actors are afforded much to do. They make a strong impression when onscreen, but simply don't factor into the story as much as I would have liked. Basically, don't expect to see these three actors onscreen for more than ten minutes total or you'll be woefully disappointed.

Thankfully, Pedro Pascal stands out apart from the crowd as Agent Whiskey. The Game of Thrones star does it again, putting forth a gruff, chiseled Southern charm that's simply satisfying to see. Pascal gets plenty of time in the limelight with a couple key action sequences that will knock your socks off, and his character is by-far the most developed of the Statesman agents, so it's only fitting that he lassoes his way towards standing being one of the top performers.

In the antagonistic department, neither Julianne Moore or Edward Holcroft were able to fill the void Samuel L. Jackson and Sofia Boutella left behind. Moore seems to have thoroughly enjoyed herself playing Poppy as an bozo baddie, but I don't think the script did her character any favors. Poppy's motivation aren't really relatable and she's not positioned to be particularly menacing in her own right whatsoever. Her right hand-henchman, the rejected Kingsman applicant Charlie, is portrayed by Holcroft once more, and while he makes for a serviceable servant of evil, he's rarely anything more than that. On the bright side, viewers may or may not be surprised to see Elton John pop up in The Golden Circle for an extended cameo appearance. Elton John's scenes had me dying of laughter and independently are more than worth the price of admission (or Blu-Ray in this case?).

Kingsman: The Golden Circle isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but there was enough fun to outweigh its problems in my opinion. Kingsman: The Golden Circle may not be a golden follow-up, but it shouldn't be discounted as fool's gold, because The Golden Circle still shines as a delightful globe-trotting spy adventure in spite of its flaws! 

Film Assessment: B

'The Great Wall' Review

In The Great Wall European mercenaries searching for "black powder" (gun powder) stumble across the Great Wall of China and are drawn into a conflict between China's militia and an army of monsters to protect not only China, but the world itself.

The Great Wall has been surrounded by plenty of whitewashing controversy for casting Matt Damon in the lead role of what's actually the most expensive Chinese production ever made. Is the controversy justified? Not really, and I'll explain why shortly. First of all, Damon is surrounded by LOTS of Chinese talent in front of and behind the camera. Second of all, this film is not based on any pre-existing events, myths, or legends whatsoever. Therefore, Damon's character William was always intended to be a European outsider considering this film's an original idea. It's not as if they cast Damon in the role of an Asian character for some odd reason. Thirdly, Damon's role isn't quite what many are assuming. His character isn't subjecting European ideals on the Chinese and he's definitely not a "white savior" or "hero" of this story, in fact he's almost a supporting asset in terms of how he contributes to the action. Did his character need to be there? Not really... In fact, the movie may have been better without him and the tangled subplots surrounding his side of things but I wouldn't consider his inclusion to be whitewashing. If anything, Matt Damon was involved because a film this ambitious unfortunately needs respected American actors to headline if they're going to be green-lit by studio executives.

Visionary director Zhang Yimou helms the sprawling Chinese blockbuster and his inclusion permits The Great Wall's aesthetic to flourish. The cinematography, production design, battle armor, action sequences and visual effects are all admittedly impressive elements to be found in The Great Wall. The action sequences include wall sieges reminiscent to the Battle of Helm's Deep from The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers or the zombie wall ascension from World War Z and a third act finale that feels like a convoluted final boss fight from a video game. The Tao Tei monster design is undeniably original as they look like lizard dog creatures you might come across in a video game.

Back to the action, you'll find the sequences are cool in the moment and will scratch your "awesome archer Matt Damon vs a CG-monster army" itch but none of which were particularly memorable or engaging due to flat characterization. If you don't care about the characters, it's difficult to get engaged in the action and that fault lies with the screenplay penned by Carlo Bernard, Doug Miro, and Tony Gilroy with a story treatment from Max Brooks, Edward Zwick, and Marshall Heskovitz.

The characters remain fairly static throughout and are scarcely developed so you never really connect or care about them at all for that matter. There's a "character arc" for Damon as William that he supposedly redeems himself from a hardened mercenary to a genuine hero but the film fails to really show any despicable actions on William's part. This in turn makes it difficult to believe he was ever a "bad guy" considering all his contrary selfless acts of heroism shown throughout. As for the story itself, the film spreads itself thin with pointless side quests that you won't care about. The story's stretched thin but it feels unbelievably and unnecessarily bloated, I would have preferred two hours defending the Great Wall of China because the early combat sequences showed promise for that side of things despite displaying way too much of the Chinese preparation.

The cast also don't do much to pick up the slack as no-one really shone through. I'm saddened to say this is probably the worst Matt Damon performance I have ever seen, which really is a shame considering Damon's proven himself capable of leading an action blockbuster before. Damon nails the action side of things but makes an odd decision to mesh Irish and Scottish accents and the end result's incredibly inconsistent. Outside of his accent, Damon practically sleepwalks through this movie with dry dialogue delivery.

Tian Jing's Lin Mae makes a strong showing but I wish her character had been more developed for me to actually care about her. Jing is surprisingly not the cliché love interest or sex appeal so thank goodness for that! In the remaining supporting arsenal Game of Thrones' Pedro Pascal serves his part as Damon's sidekick Tovar while Willem Dafoe's Ballard is the typical greedy merchant, an absolute waste of Dafoe's talents. A positive aspect of The Great Wall I forgot to mention earlier is its epic score from Game of Thrones composer Ramin Djawdi. Djawdi has proven himself capable of crafting epic sweeping scores that match the intended grandiose nature of the project and he succeeds once again here.

In conclusion, The Great Wall isn't offensively bad, it's probably something you won't mind catching on cable but it's not worth two hours of your time or the price of admission at the cinema. The visuals don't quite redeem the lackluster story and forgettable characters, but they do make The Great Wall slightly more watchable.

Film Assessment: C-