ShopkeeperTriumph's Reviews

→ in
Tools    





Wonder Woman (2017)





I knew I would be in for something different than the previous three DCEU installments by the movie's ten minute mark. There's no big explosions, no prolonged character introductions, it's not big immediately at the start. You're quickly thrown into Themyscira without much explanation, and you learn more as you go along. This much more relaxed introduction will set up the tone, and pacing for the whole movie, and I thought to myself "if they keep this up, I know I'm going to walk out of here satisfied." And they did. Well, mostly, but we'll get to that.

The biggest thing I can give props to Wonder Woman in comparison to it's DCEU counterparts is that it feels very natural, tight, and straightforward. By the time Batman V Superman came out, it was The Dark Knight's 10th venture on to the big screen, and the Man of Steel's 7th. Wonder Woman has a significant advantage, since this is her big screen solo debut, and there's no demand for a big change in formula, so the film is allowed to keep it on rails, rather than Man of Steel, or Batman V Superman, which both felt like they had to be overly ambitious due to audience's familiarity with both heroes on the big screen.

But, enough with the comparisons to the other three movies. How does it stand as a standalone piece? Very well! Funny enough, Wonder Woman does not feel like a superhero movie, especially in comparison to this decade's sea of titles. It's more of a war drama/ fantasy. When something superhero-y does actually happen, like Diane jumping a billion feet in the air, Diane uses her lasso, or when you see one of the main antagonist, Dr.Poison's plastic filled face, you're kind of taken aback. I thought to myself several times "woah, I completely forgot I was watching a Wonder Woman movie!"

Now, I said this was a war drama, and even if there wasn’t all the big spectacle, and Gadot was just playing a larger than life optimist rather than a iconic DC hero, this would still be a pretty engaging one. It’s pretty interesting to see a complete outsider react to a war she knows nothing about, and there’s a lot of food for thought regarding the act of war, and human nature in general. It isn’t exactly deep, but I was engaged.

Gal Gadot is a pretty good Wonder Woman, too. You can tell it’s a character she completely understands, and she’s at her best when she’s the most curious. It’s definitely a Wonder Woman stripped to her key core elements, so don’t expect a revelation, or anything, but it’s a fairly standard interpretation that fits the movies nicely that feels like it was ripped straight out of the comic books, easily DCEU’S most essential character by far, and the one I’ll be looking forward to the most in Justice League. Chris Pine is a lot of fun too, and they have good chemistry together, he's a lot more neurotic, and flawed in this one in comparison to some of his other big budget roles, it's a nice change of pace. Most of the laughs in the movie come from this pair up. Most of them are pretty easy fish out of water gags, but they work, and they're never distracting, or forced.

So, what doesn't work in this movie? Well, it's at it's worst when it remembers it's a modern day superhero movie with a goal to reach at the end. Don't get me wrong, I love these kind of movies, I see every one of them. But, what works in something like Civil War doesn't fit in something that's significantly more grounded like this. Slow motion is used as a crutch, the amount of slow motion used for the action would make an excellent drinking game, and they use it in the most uninteresting ways. The ending is also incredibly uninspired. I like how the main villain is pretty involved, and reflective with the general theme of the movie, but it just comes out of nowhere, and the fight is underwhelming. I really do wish the director came up with a way to make the action more engaging, while also matching what the movie was going for up to the finale, but instead takes every "Snyderism" and desperately tries to mush them in without knowing what to do with them.

All in all though, I had a good time with it, and I think it succeeds because of how simple it is. It's easily the best movie in this universe by a longshot, even if I don't think it's quite the game changer some people say it is. But, I think it's an example of how these movies don't have to be all feel the same, and can work just fine by themselves. Hopefully this will be the spark for something even greater than has the same aspirations as this one. But, for now, it's more than good enough, if you ask me.



Nina Forever





I'll say this, I really like the concept of this movie. A man loses his girlfriend in a car crash, and he has to deal with the memory of her while attempting to maintain a new relationship, quite literally, as she makes an appearance as a zombie every time he has sex. What an interesting way to tackle a heavy theme, there was so many opportunities to create a lot of unique, effective drama.

The movie falls short immediately as it starts. You're introduced to Holly (Abigail Hardingham), a kinky girl who is underestimated due to her seemingly kindhearted demeanor. To prove she has a vastly more daring personality behind all of the sweetness, she befriends a coworker from work, a quiet, frustrated man named Rob (Cian Barry.) They shorty fall for each other, but this is where the main problems starts; they have no noticeable connection on screen. Their two big "falling in love" moments include her tending a wound of his as they listen to Rob's music, and them both running through ongoing traffic, as if to say "oh, look how different, and impulsive we both are!" This movie portrays romance like Twilight, or Fifty Shades, for example; the two are not attracted to each other by personality, they're attracted by curiousity towards each other, and their flaws.

So, they start banging, and Nina (Fiona O'Shaughnessy) enters the mix, which happens outrageously early into the movie, as if they know the only amount of intrigue is when the zombie appears. I know the directors stated they wanted this to be as uncampy as they possibly could, but it certainly doesn't show when Nina appears, as she is a wise cracking, nasty, blood soaked maniac. For something that's seemingly going for something significantly more subtle, and restrained than we see with most movies of this genre, it sure does let loose with Nina, and it's expectedly uneven. I could see this performance being entertaining in say, Evil Dead, but here, it's pretty aggravating.

As the two fall more, and more in love (I guess,) Holly becomes more, and more drawn to Nina... for some reason. She wants them all to live together in peace, but also wants her to leave? She even goes out of her way to get the same tattoo that the boyfriend has that reads "Nina Forever" (there it is!) But why? I know it's established that she wants to prove that she's not the plain jane that everyone assumes she is, and maybe she's just going with the flow to make that point, and that this is the only reason you're in this relationship at all, but the film makes it fairly clear that it's for real, and they are actually in love. Why is she so committed? Her actions make no sense! I hate all of these characters.

I'm rambling now. I could go on, but I think I've said enough. The movie has a strong visual style, but that can't help the dull romantic drama, stupid, uncertain character motives, an uneven tone, and so many attention seeking moments that are just there just for the sake of a little bit of uncomfortable shock. This movie was quite a disappointment.



Nice write ups Shopkeeper. I doubt I'll watch WonderWoman, but Nina Forever sounds like an interesting (but gory!) idea.
Keep up the good work!



Nice write ups Shopkeeper. I doubt I'll watch WonderWoman, but Nina Forever sounds like an interesting (but gory!) idea.
Keep up the good work!
Thanks! It's definitely unique, I'll give it that, and it's shot very well. If the two directors show a little more restraint next time around, I feel like they could make something a lot better. or, something I personally like more, at least!



Live By Night (2016)





I don't have that much to say about this one. I'm a fan of Affleck's directing work, and I think he's a good enough actor, great even sometimes (Gone Girl, for example.) He clearly has talent as a writer too, with contributions to scripts to film such as Good Will Hunting, and The Town. This is his first solo writing credit, and while nowhere close to a disaster, Affleck seemed to have a problem with making this novel adaptation feel gigantic. You can definitely tell this is a big story, but nothing that should stick in a story like this just doesn't leave a huge impact. The mob bosses don't feel that intimidating, prohibition doesn't feel like this tremendous ordeal, it just seems like a minor inconvenience. It just goes from conflict to conflict without any sense of authentic tension.

Affleck's strength when it comes to creating a specific period, and time is still present here, though, Tampa Bay truly does feel alive, and the movie's more less involved plot in comparison to his other films allows you to get a pretty good look of all of it. I just wish it played to Affleck's other strengths as a director, although I wouldn't call this a step backwards, more like just playing it pretty safe. I feel like if you're more forgiving when it comes to seeing stuff you've already seen in a movie like this you'll like it fine, it doesn't do this genre any wrongs, it gets the job done. But, I wouldn't expect to be wowed.



Indeed! Judging by your review, that's one we can both agree on.

I just bought one of the newest Wonder Woman graphic novels, too. I'm cruising in the hype train, and I do not intend to get off anytime soon.



Thanks! It's definitely unique, I'll give it that, and it's shot very well. If the two directors show a little more restraint next time around, I feel like they could make something a lot better. or, something I personally like more, at least!
It's their first feature film isn't it? I guess enthusiasm means you want to chuck all your ideas at it. I might watch it later on.



Some recent movies I've watched:

Day of the Dead (1985)-
+

Hard to believe, this is actually my first Romero movie!

This is just a really fun movie beginning to end, I haven't so entertained by a movie like this in quite a while. I think what really brings it to life are the actors. Call it overacting, I don't care, they're all clearly having so much fun, and you even remember the minor guys because of a delightfully performed line, or two. The most notable would have to be Joseph Pilato, oh my god, this guy is a living cartoon character, he's just all over the place, how did he didn't reach some sort of Bruce Campbell like cult status after this movie is beyond me. Richard Liberty is great as a power hungry scientist too, you really believe the guy's giddiness every time he sees that damn zombie he loves so much. I think what also is impressive is that even with all of these actors chewing away at the scenery, Romero never goes too campy with all of it, he wants you to take it a little serious, but still have a lot of fun you would get from any other zombie flick that tries to do the same thing, and he does it very well, there's even a few poignant lines here and there.

While no surprise here, as he's often renowned for it, the effects are messy, drenched, and effective as hell. Never too realistically crafted, everything is an eye catching, unbelievable bright red, but I was never saying "aww, c'mon, this looks stupid!" It fits the movie well. Before I ramble on more, my first jump into Romero's filmography was a blast, and I really can't wait to dive back in, especially if this is the one that's the least renowned in the original Dead trilogy!

Dean (2017)-
+

I'm a fan of Martin's quirky, drawing filled standup, so I was looking forward to this one. It's a noticeably big departure from his quick puns, and songs, as this is a drama at heart, and a pretty A to B one at that, that's saved from being completely throwaway by his distinctive writing that bleeds through enough to be slightly better than other mediocre films like it. He definitely knows what makes the best movies that try the same thing work, but offers little when it comes to advancing the formula, or truly making it his own. I enjoyed it well enough, though.
Year of the Dog (2007)-


Very similar to Mike White's own Enlightened, a favorite of mine. This also features an obsessive, but well intentioned woman who finds her calling, and shoves it down everyone's throat to the point of the main character's inevitable breakdown. Again, it's pretty familiar stuff for White, and Enlightened has the advantage, but it's still darkly funny, and soul crushing.

Friends with Money (2006)-
+

Nicole Holocener, if you ask me, is such an underrated talent, I think, alongside with Alexander Payne, is making some of the most consistently good dramedies today. It juggles a lot, and some characters, and areas are more interesting to watch than others, but it has a lot of thoughtful things to say about wealth, the enjoyment of one's own life, and how they do, and don't connect. Great turns from Aniston, and, no shocker here, Catherine Keener, who both steal the show.

There's more I have to talk about, I'll get a few quick thoughts on them later!