The Mummy

 

 Disney has the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Warner Bros. has the DC Extended Universe AND the Kaiju Universe and now Universal is hoping to get in on the Universe action with their Dark Universe, a cinematic world featuring the studios’ famous monsters. The Invisible Man, Wolfman, Frankenstein’s Monster and Dracula are all up for grabs in this Universe. Interestingly, the 2017 film of The Mummy is the third film this century signalling Universal’s attempts to start a monster cinematic universe. First, we had 2004’s Van Helsing, which is a guilty pleasure of mine (and is ironically directed by Stephen Sommers, who also directed 1999’s The Mummy and 2001’s The Mummy Returns). After the critical and commercial disappointment, Van Helsing failed to ignite much interest in the classic monsters. Then we had 2014’s Dracula Untold, which I haven’t seen yet but which was another let-down for the studio both monetarily and in critical feedback. With 2017’s The Mummy, Universal is throwing all their might behind this endeavour; there’s even a Dark Universe logo which appears at the start of the film, much like how the Marvel Studios logo first appeared before 2008’s Iron Man. Unfortunately, if The Mummy is the best that the Dark Universe can muster, this franchise is in serious trouble.

Centuries ago, Princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella) made a pact with Set, the God of Death. Being discovered, she was condemned to an eternity of imprisonment. In present day, soldier of fortune Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) and his partner Chris Veil (Jake Johnson), along with archaeologist Jennifer Halsey (Annabelle Wallis), unearth the tomb and unwittingly unleash Ahmanet’s evil upon the world. Now Nick is cursed and a race against time to save his soul begins…

I’m a big fan of Tom Cruise, and while the screenplay doesn’t craft much of a character for him to work with, he’s still an energised and fun lead for the film. As usual, Cruise throws himself into the action; his stunt-work and physicality are very impressive. He also handles the comedic moments quite well, as his encounters with the supernatural throw him for a real loop. The only issue I have with Cruise’s performance is that he overplays Nick’s confusion sometimes. Anyone going through this situation would be more than a little perplexed, but there are a couple of scenes where Cruise seems almost on a different plane of existence to everyone around him, and not in a good way. Despite that, while Nick Morton isn’t likely to be one of Cruise’s most remembered roles, he still brings enough gusto to make one forget his lacklustre turn in last year’s Jack Reacher: Never Go Back. What’s more, he shares solid antagonistic chemistry with Sofia Boutella. Boutella, who has become a huge rising star after her scene-stealing turn in 2015’s Kingsman: The Secret Service, once again brings a poised menace to her work here. She is a powerful physical presence, but Boutella also manages to add an undercurrent of pain and a healthy dose of arrogance to the character. Try as Boutella might to flesh out Ahmanet, though, neither the screenplay nor director Alex Kurtzman give her enough to do and there are times during the second act where she slides into the background. She also falls victim to being part of a poorly done love triangle between Ahmanet, Nick and Jenny. As the latter, the lovely Annabelle Wallis is saddled with a bare-bones role. She does manage to inject some wit and humour into her scenes occasionally, but she’s often either providing exposition (sometimes exposition we’ve already heard from other characters) or needing to be saved by Cruise’s character. Wallis and Cruise seem forced together rather than exhibiting genuine screen chemistry, which proves a significant flaw in the film come its final act. For comedic relief, Jake Johnson isn’t all that comedic. There’s a point early in the film where something interesting happens with his character, but the approach that Johnson and the filmmakers take to this concept never meshes successfully and the character ultimately becomes extraneous. Speaking of extraneous, why get an actor like Courtney B. Vance, who portrays Nick and Chris’ colonel, only to do almost nothing with him? It seems odd, especially given that Vance has become even more well-known after his work on American Crime Story, to throw him into such a thankless role.

The last cast member I want to discuss is strangely both one of the best and worst things about the film. As a mysterious figure who plays a role in proceedings, Russell Crowe (joining his second cinematic universe after playing Superman Sr. in 2013’s Man of Steel) delivers a stand-out performance. Crowe walks the tight-rope between controlled intelligence and quirky oddity with ease (a simple ‘hm?’ from him during one of the more intense scenes garnered perhaps the biggest laugh of the film from me). The scenes between him and Cruise are a lot of fun to watch, mostly due to watching these two great actors go head-to-head. Crowe also does a solid job emphasising the intensity bubbling beneath the surface of the character. I’m not going to reveal the character’s name here for those who don’t know, but as soon as you hear the name, you’ll be expecting certain events to happen. And when they do, Crowe’s performance is superb. However, despite Crowe’s strong and nimble portrayal, his character is indicative of significant flaws in the film. The character feels less like an integral part of this story and more a hefty chunk of set-up for the future of the Dark Universe. The set-up isn’t that subtle, either; my dad, who likes to steer clear of film details (which would include everything Dark Universe related), said upon leaving the cinema that they’re obviously planning to build more films around The Mummy. Speaking of the Mummy, Crowe’s introduction is what pushes her right into the background. This development brings the story of the film, which already gets off to an awkward start and has a few bumps, to an utter halt. When the ground-work for future films smothers the titular character of the present film, isn’t that taking things too far? This is, in my opinion, a major part of what makes The Mummy the weakest opening chapter of a cinematic universe to date. 2008’s Iron Man, 2013’s Man of Steel, 2014’s Godzilla… Despite their varying qualities overall, these introductions to cinematic universes understood the importance of allowing the first film to play out without going too far in establishing future films. This allowed the films to make their mark as their own entities, making me more excited to see future instalments because I didn’t feel beaten over the head by the prospect. The Mummy goes out of its way to let you know that this is the start of a universe, leaning so heavily on that knowledge that it’s harder to appreciate as something which stands on its own.

That doesn’t mean there’s nothing to enjoy here, though. The film shifts between action, comedy and horror, and while the film can often shift from one tone to another so quickly that it leaves a feeling of whiplash, each has their moments. There are some effective action set-pieces. One scene on a plane, whilst shown almost in its entirety throughout the trailers, still manages to be a thrillingly edge-of-the-seat sequence; the stunts in this scene are very well-done. And while the film never quite tops that, a chase scene in and around the woods and a climactic dash through London (particularly an under-water pursuit) are enjoyably executed. However, it bears mentioning that the finale has at least three unavoidable echoes of action sequences from 2011’s Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol and 2015’s Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation, both also starring Cruise. To the film’s credit, the horror is more intense than I anticipated. The scene where two men encounter a newly awakened Ahmanet is skin-crawlingly creepy; this is one of the film’s best scenes, and even when you know what’s going to happen, the execution is still confident enough to make the scares stick. What’s more, the creature design by Crash McCreary is grotesquely riveting (even though Ahmanet’s minions look a lot like the zombies from 2013’s World War Z). Aided by a bombastic yet slyly atmospheric score from Brian Tyler, the action and horror elements are the tones which the film juggles most successfully. It’s less successful when it comes to implementing comedy. While there are moments where all the actors land at least one funny line, only Cruise and Crowe manage to successfully lace a thorough-line of humour all the way through. At its best, the comedy stems from the shock and confusion of the characters at these supernatural events; one of the funniest scenes, and the only scene where that ill-advised love triangle has any merit, is a darkly clever spin on a big romantic cliché. At its worst, the comedy detracts from some of the film’s more intriguing concepts; this is never more evident than with Johnson’s character. There are also scenes where we’re clearly meant to be laughing, but the comedy is so obviously manufactured that it’s hard to embrace; some of the bickering between Cruise and Wallis epitomises this perfectly.

Technically, the film is a mixed bag. As is to be expected from a big summer release, there are some engaging visuals; these include the early incarnation of Ahmanet, her minions and the main plane sequence. But these are nowhere near the best visual effects we could hope for nowadays; compare this with recent films like Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol. 2, Wonder Woman and even Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales to see what I mean. Even that final chase through London, while entertaining to watch, features visuals which felt better-executed in a similar sequence from the 1999 version. The lacklustre visuals might have something to do with the cinematography, though I feel the 3D is partially to blame here. Cinematographer Ben Seresin brings the Egyptian desert to vivid life whenever it’s on screen (which isn’t as much as you might think for a film called The Mummy) and he creates some strong atmosphere in a regenerating Ahmanet’s night-time attacks. Unfortunately, the London sequences are decidedly drab and offer little of visual interest. The 3D doesn’t help much, either; following Dead Men Tell No Tales, this is the second film I’ve recently seen in 3D where I’ve had no idea what’s going on in certain scenes. If you have a choice between seeing this film in 2D or 3D, please see it in 2D. The 3D doesn’t provide further immersion nor does it offer the fun gimmick of things popping out of the screen; it’s pointless and makes an already visually dark film near pitch-clack at times. The editing team of Gina Hirsch, Paul Hirsch and Andrew Mondshein struggle to keep the film moving at a efficient pace; there are scenes which feel WAY too rushed (everything between Cruise and Wallis' character, in particular) and scenes in the second act which feel much longer than they actually are. In fact, the second act is so thick with exposition and groundwork that the editing over-compensates spectacularly when it comes to the third act, moving so quickly that nothing has time to really stick. Dominic Watkins and Jon Hutman’s production design (along with the work of the art direction and set decoration teams) echoes the cinematography in that it is strongest during the Egypt sequences. The Tomb of Ahmanet is the high-light, an immense chasm filled with imposing statues, crumbling corpses and a ghoulish sarcophagus. However, bar a church and surrounding ruins which practically drip with implied menace, the production design is unimaginative in bringing the UK locations to life. There’s a severe lack of visual panache or style here, which is a real shame given how the film started. One thing which isn’t lacking in panache or style, as I said before, is Brian Tyler’s score. Tyler’s compositions here may not be memorable, but he ably switches tone from intense actions beats to dread-filled horror and provides a constant energy which the film often lacks elsewhere.

The main issue with The Mummy (outside of it so obviously straining to be a solid foundation for a cinematic universe, and not doing a very good job of it) is with the story and script. As I said before, the story (worked on by Kurtzman, Jon Spaihts and Jenny Lumet) stops and starts way too often. I have no idea why the whole film wasn’t set in Egypt, but the constant shuffling (no pun intended) of pieces to bring characters to the UK makes the film feel much more convoluted than it really needed to be, with a shoehorned-in lore which really feels out-of-place in a Mummy film. Then, of course, you have that second act which kills a lot of the limited momentum the film had at that point. One thing which hasn’t been discussed thus far is the ending. No spoilers, but what could have been a cool and interesting idea gets all but bungled in a rush of lacklustre motivation and poor execution. The most transparent flaw here is the lack of attachment. You can’t get attached to any of these characters because the film never gives you a chance to. The script by David Koepp, Christopher McQuarrie and Dylan Hussman tells you why you should, but there’s a difference between telling and showing. Wonder Woman gave us characters to care about by showing you why you should care; thus, when it came time for that attachment to pay off, it really worked. Here, try as the actors might, we’re shown too little and told too much why we should be invested; this means that, when the film-makers try to execute certain events based on a non-existent attachment with the characters, the effort feels more flat and hollow. Keep in mind that the story and script teams had to work together to create the film’s final narrative. That means that six people, each with their own individual style, worked on the same product. Suddenly the tonal inconsistencies and discombobulated story-telling make a lot more sense.  

Speaking of discombobulated story-telling, Kurtzman as director should face some of the blame. For a man who’s only directed one feature film prior to this, his first big-budget effort, Kurtzman does show some flair. This is especially true of the more horrific moments and some of the action sequences. But when it comes to handling the story and characters, Kurtzman’s direction leaves much to be desired. He feels much more at ease around the monsters than the humans, which makes it more perplexing when Ahmanet is shoved to the background (no, I’m not letting that go). Kurtzman’s direction, and the film in general, never escapes the air of a ‘studio mandated’ excursion. The romantic entanglement, the inclusion of Crowe’s character, uprooting the Mummy from her homeland of Egypt and bringing her over to London… These all feel like decisions forced upon the film by the studio. Studio mandates can bring down even the most experienced directors; look at the drama between Edgar Wright and Marvel Studios over Ant-Man for a more detailed example. Kurtzman’s the over-seer for the entire Dark Universe, and that is a lot of pressure. However, I don’t know if he was the right man for the job here. As stated before, his passion for the monsters dissipates when the humans are on screen; it doesn’t help that the script saddles him with scenes of dull and generic exposition, which the actors try their best to enliven but are ultimately speeches we’ve heard many times before (even within this film, as Wallis’ character offers the same explanation to Cruise’s character that Crowe’s character gave the audience at the beginning of the film). While Kurtzman may have some areas where he needs to improve his directorial skills, the script also hinders him and makes the flaws with the film more evident than they might have been otherwise.

During a pivotal confrontation in The Mummy, an object gets knocked to the floor. This object will look familiar to fans of 1999’s The Mummy and 2001’s The Mummy Returns. But, while it’s a winking reference, it works against the film since it made me wish I was watching those films (particularly the former). I don’t want to sound overly vicious, but I honestly think the 1999 version trumps the 2017 film in almost every way. It’s important to compare, since the 2017 version borrows a lot more from the 1999 version and The Mummy Returns than might be initially apparent. So here’s a brief review of the 1999 version:

As Rick O’Connell, Brendan Fraser is a great action hero with a wonderful streak of goofy comedy which matches the film perfectly. Fraser’s work in The Mummy is career-defining, and whenever I hear Fraser’s name, Rick O’Connell is always the character which comes to mind first. Rachel Weisz is a wonderful romantic interest as Evie Carnahan; while she does need to be saved occasionally, she has an alluring mix of smarts and excitable zest which stop her from falling into the ‘damsel-in-distress’ trap. What’s more, the chemistry between Fraser and Weisz is loveably organic. As Evie’s brother Jonathan, John Hannah offers great comic relief which doesn’t feel forced. Arnold Vosloo makes for a terrific Mummy, with the design of his mummified, regenerating figure a memorably frightening one; it also helps that, from his revival, the character is always a presence. Even when he’s not in scenes, characters are always wary of him, building anticipation for his appearances. The stunt-work is fantastic (particularly in an awesome battle scene early on), and the visuals are genuinely impressive for a 1999 production. Adrian Biddle’s cinematography and Allan Cameron’s production design thrive on the Egyptian setting, creating some brilliant vistas and creatively atmospheric sets (the latter with help from the fantastic art direction and set decoration teams) whilst also capturing the period terrifically along with John Bloomfield’s excellent costume design. The score by Jerry Goldsmith is magnificent, Bob Ducsay’s editing keeps the story moving in both fast and coherent fashion, the script by Stephen Sommers has a lot of fun dialogue and Sommers directs the film with just the right balance of goofy humour, bad-ass action and creepy imagery. The Mummy is one of my favourite child-hood films, and after revisiting it numerous times, I still love it.

As you can see, I clearly enjoy the 1999 version, and while I didn’t talk about it as much, I also really enjoy The Mummy Returns (2008’s The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, on the other hand, is a piece of cinematic road-kill). The key ingredient which made both the 1999 and 2001 films work was charm. There was a lightness to proceedings that, even in the darker and scarier moments, made the films so much fun to watch. The characters, the setting, the environments… All of this and so much more was handled in just the right way to make them enjoyable pieces of escapist summer entertainment.

The 2017 version, on the other hand, is bogged down by heavy-handed world-building and a lack of a clear tonal thorough-line. Most importantly, it's not fun. There's no sense of being on a thrilling adventure; for the most part, it just feels like we're going through the motions. While there might still be potential ahead for the Dark Universe, The Mummy has severely damaged what little faith I had in the franchise. In fact, I’ve wanted to say something for a while, but I wanted to give The Mummy a chance before I did. Why does there need to be a Dark Universe? There doesn’t. Rather than try to copy other studios and their success by creating a Universe right off the bat, Universal could have released this as a stand-alone film and given other monsters the same treatment. Then, if those worked, they could have woven the characters together and it wouldn’t feel as forced as it does here. That’s how the studio handled the monsters back in their hey-day during the 1930’s and 1940’s. At the end of the day, The Mummy does very little to justify its existence; it’s not even proving as monetarily successful as the studio might have liked, flopping at the US box office. As it stands, the Dark Universe is an arrogant and greedy way of bringing much-loved monsters back into the lime-light. If The Mummy is a sign of what is to come, perhaps it should have stayed buried.

Final Rating: 2 out of 5

   

 

        

    

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

Gifted

 

In terms of directorial debuts in film, easily one of my favourites of the past decade is Marc Webb’s (500) Days of Summer. Ever since its release back in summer 2009, it has always been one of my favourite films dealing with romance and relationships. Naturally, it made me excited to see what Webb would do next. Ironically, Webb’s next two films were The Amazing Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man 2. While I liked both films upon release, I will say that my enjoyment has dissipated due to problems regarding tone and story-telling which become more and more apparent after looking closely. For those reasons, I can understand why Webb would want to return to a smaller, more intimate landscape with Gifted. Much like (500) Days of Summer, Gifted is being released amidst the spectacle of the summer movie season and is also a refreshing alternative for those who want to see something other than super-heroics, grand worlds or robots in disguise (although those first two options are still appealing to me if done right).

Gifted follows the story of Frank Adler (Chris Evans), a man trying to raise his niece Mary (McKenna Grace) after her mother and Frank’s sister Diane, a genius mathematician, tragically passed away. Mary is also incredibly gifted when it comes to math, something which becomes quickly apparent to her new teacher Bonnie (Jenny Slate) and her principal (Elizabeth Marvel). When Frank turns down the principal’s offer of full scholarship for Mary at an academy, claiming that he wants Mary to be more social and happy in her life, Mary’s grandmother and Frank’s mother Evelyn (Lindsey Duncan) comes with plans to take Mary away and give her the life that Frank claims Diane never wanted for her. Thus, a struggle for custody ensues.

Gifted is first and foremost an ‘actors’ film, and the cast deliver mostly first-rate work. Chris Evans ably escapes the shadow of Captain America with his thoughtful and sensitive work as Frank; this is a man trying to provide for his niece whilst battling doubts over whether he’s the best carer for her. Evans plays that uncertainty beautifully, especially in scenes where others confront him with that frightening possibility. It was vital for the actress playing Mary to match Evans beat for beat during their scenes together, and fortunately McKenna Grace is up to the challenge. She is fantastic in this role, brimming with both grace and social uncertainty; Grace is both a soft and formidable presence, and her performance always feels genuine. Most importantly, she shares great on-screen chemistry with Evans, and their discussions are both wryly funny and touching. Another outstanding performance (perhaps the best in the film) comes from Lindsey Duncan as Evelyn. It would have been so easy to make Evelyn the scheming and one-dimensional villainess. Credit must go to Webb, Duncan and screen-writer Tom Flynn for making Evelyn a much more rounded character. Evelyn has moments of genuine warmth between both Frank and Mary, which makes her icy insults slice even deeper (and make no mistake; some of Evelyn’s lines are less verbal barbs and more verbal shrapnel slicing right through her prey). Duncan is nothing short of sensational in this role, with her two stand-out moments coming during a courtroom speech and during her final scene in the film. Duncan mixes Evelyn’s icy-cold disdain towards Frank and her daughter with an underlying tenderness, which shines through when she’s given time with Mary. You never lose track of why Evelyn’s this way and what her intentions are, even though her methods may leave something to be desired and even cause some people to despise her in certain moments. Jenny Slate offers solid support as Mary’s teacher Bonnie, even though she becomes more of a background character as the film progresses. Even characters who would be less important in other films, such as the lawyers and judge in the courtroom scenes, are brought to life by the terrific actors and Flynn’s compelling script. John M. Jackson emanates impatient vigour as Judge Edward Nichols, John Finn plays Evelyn’s lawyer Aubrey Highsmith as a tenacious bulldog (especially when he goes after Frank) and, best of all, Glenn Plummer is a wonderfully charming and cool highlight as Frank’s lawyer Greg Cullen. Add on a small yet memorably uptight turn from Elizabeth Marvel as the principal who thinks she has all the right answers, and the cast is excellent. But I did find one weak link, and that is Octavia Spencer as Frank and Mary’s neighbour Roberta. However, I think that this is more the script’s fault than Spencer’s; you can see Spencer trying, but Roberta just comes across as more of a stereotype than an actual character. She feels like a bunch of character traits thrown together with no real cohesion. Considering both how great the other characters and actors are and how wonderful Spencer can be in other projects (such as The Help and Hidden Figures), neither Roberta or Spencer left much of an impression on me here.

Another area in which Gifted thrives is in the discussion of its themes. The thematic material of who is the best choice to take care of a child and how should a child with extraordinary skills be treated are explored with admirably even-handed results. There are both pros and cons in both Frank and Evelyn’s arguments, and Webb, Flynn and the actors are very skilled in exploring all sides of the debates. The courtroom scenes aid in these arguments; whilst there’s a chance of preachiness, the setting of the courtroom allows everyone to delve into these debates without coming across as a sermon. Most effectively, the film often allows the characters to breathe without making these arguments out loud, making it more effective in the moments when these points are raised.

I’ve mentioned it before, but it bears repeating in greater detail that Tom Flynn’s script is simply superb. There is nary a conversation between characters which doesn’t ensnare the attention, and whilst fair credit must go to the actors, the words they are speaking are of great intelligence, wit and humanity. What’s more, Webb knows that the actors and script are two wonderful weapons in his arsenal and he channels them perfectly. This is very understated direction, but this is the right way to go; Gifted relies more explicitly on the actors and the script than on flashy direction, and Webb wisely realises this. He knows that sometimes you just need to have a strong script and then capture tremendously skilled actors bring those words and scenarios to life. Both Webb and Flynn treat the audience with respect, only resorting to manipulation on a couple of occasions. Even then, when I knew I was being manipulated, I couldn’t help but become emotional at certain scenes. There is a definite emotional resonance to this film’s story, and credit goes to everyone involved for bringing that emotion to life in a way which feels mostly natural. I’ll freely admit that there were some scenes which made me teary-eyed.

Along with that, Gifted is simply a gorgeous film to look at. Cinematographer Stuart Dryburgh bathes the Georgia locations in a unforced sun-drenched beauty before capturing the Boston scenes with a grey, almost functional style which perfectly fits the character of Evelyn. Bill Pankow’s editing is also on-point, never lingering for much longer than necessary and keeping the story moving at a consistently engaging pace. On top of that, Gifted has a solid score and soundtrack. Composer Rob Simonsen, while being heavy-handed at times, nonetheless fashions an overall effective score which adeptly taps into the emotional landscape of the film. Meanwhile, the songs used are very well-chosen, from Cat Stevens’ The Wind to Johnny McDaid and Gary Lighbody’s This is How You Walk On.

There are aspects of Gifted’s story which struck a very personal chord with me, and perhaps made me more susceptible to becoming emotionally invested in the story. I really found that the film offered an honest depiction of how a scenario like this would affect the different parties. That includes not only the two sides fighting for custody, but the child in the middle. For me, Gifted offered a very even, intelligent and emotionally sound exploration of what a conflict like this looks like. While the film may have some more Hollywood moments towards the end, the actors (particularly Evans, Grace and Duncan) and their immersion in their roles continue to stick to the emotional course. Gifted is a real treat, and if you can’t catch it in cinemas (with all the bigger films coming out over the next few weeks, I can’t see it being on the big screen for long), I highly urge you to check it out when it’s released on home media. It’s a smaller film, but ‘small’ can’t be applied to the level of commitment applied by all those in front and behind the camera, nor my feeling of having watched something special as the end credits rolled.

Rating: 4 out of 5

 

 

 

 

Wonder Woman

I’d planned to write a long discussion on the history of the DCEU (DC Extended Universe), but to cut it short… It’s been a bit of a rocky road, hasn’t it?

2013’s Man of Steel, 2016’s Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice and 2016’s Suicide Squad all had immense hype leading up to their releases, and all failed to satisfy a significant portion of the critics and audiences. True, the DC Extended Universe has its fans, but for many, they have been a disappointment. That might explain why so much hope rests on whether Wonder Woman is a success. Based on the glowing reviews and strong box office showing thus far, a lot of people seem to be pleased; considering some box office analysts were predicting an opening weekend of $65 million, the film’s $103 million opening weekend in the US must have been a very pleasant surprise.

And I couldn’t be happier for the film’s success; not only is Wonder Woman the best film in the DCEU by miles, but it ranks amongst the best comic-book films of the past several years.

Diana (Gal Gadot) grew up on the mystical island of Themyscira under the protection of her mother Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen) and being trained by her aunt Antiope (Robin Wright) to be a great warrior. When human spy Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) lands on their shores and informs them of a great war which threatens millions of lives, Diana goes against her mother’s wishes and accompanies Steve to the world of humans to put an end to the conflict.

Wonder Woman is a refreshingly old-fashioned take on the superhero genre. While there’s enough here to identify it as an entry in a cinematic universe (the bookending scenes re-enforce that), the film smartly chooses to simply focus on its lead character and is all the better for it. There isn’t even a post-credit scene; this might be disappointing for some, but given how wonderfully the film works as a self-contained story, I loved it. All I wanted to see was the evolution of Diana’s character, and watching her develop as a compassionate and fierce warrior was everything I needed and wanted from this film.

Speaking of warriors, the film doesn’t fail to deliver on the spectacle when Diana and friends charge into battle. Whilst the CGI does become too obvious at points during the set-pieces, that doesn’t stop this from being some of the best action I’ve ever seen in a comic-book film. Part of the reason why is the impact of what’s occurring on screen; whenever warriors take or deliver a punch, you feel that punch. The physicality of the actors and their stunt doubles can’t be underestimated here; the fluidity and ferocity of the battle sequences are largely thanks to how committed they are to every move. The sensational choreography, gorgeously designed shots and heart-pounding music all aid in amplifying the excitement. From Diana’s training and first taste of war to an alley-way skirmish, the action beats are handled with expert style. My personal favourite action set-piece is one at the mid-way point of the film when Diana takes the fight to the enemy; this sequence belongs in the pantheon of great super-hero moments. The finale, whilst perhaps too heavy on CGI, is still a more-than-effective final confrontation, being as much a psychological and emotional battle as a show of strength.

Part of the reason why it’s so easy to become invested in the action is that the characters involved are so engaging and involving. First off, the supporting cast is truly excellent. Ewan Bremner (who delivered stand-out work earlier this year in T2: Trainspotting) delivers more strong work here as Charlie, a tortured sniper comrade of Steve’s, while Said Taghmaoui is a scene-stealer as another of Steve’s comrades, Samir. From when he first appears on screen, Taghmaoui is a charismatic attention-grabber and Samir, for me, is one of the most entertaining characters in the film. Out of Steve’s band, only Eugene Brave Rock struggles to make an impression as smuggler Chief, but at least he has a memorable camp-fire exchange with Diana. David Thewlis (or, as many might know him, Remus Lupin from the Harry Potter films) is reliably superb as the helpful Sir Patrick Morgan, while Lucy Davis makes for some solid comedic relief as Etta Candy, Steve Trevor’s secretary. While there are moments where I thought Davis was slightly over-doing it, she’s still a very likeable and enjoyable presence. Robin Wright (perhaps best known as Claire Underwood from Netflix’s House of Cards) makes a strong impression as Antiope, radiating strength and an underlying warmth along with a genuinely imposing physicality; when she’s in action, it’s truly impressive to behold. Connie Nielsen is wonderful as Diana’s mother Hippolyta, capturing the poise of a queen and the concerned love of a mother with power and ease. Then we come to the villains; whilst these aren’t likely to be iconic comic-book film antagonists, they’re solid enough. As General Erich Ludendorff, Danny Huston once again essays a comic-book bad guy (after playing vampire leader Marlow in 2007’s 30 Days of Night and Colonel William Stryker in 2009’s X-Men Origins: Wolverine) and relishes playing this character. Ludendorff is a very one-dimensional villain (all evil and not a care in the world), but Huston is still engaging and Ludendorff’s dynamic with partner-in-crime Dr. Muro (Elena Anaya) is entertaining to watch. Out of Ludendorff and Muro, though, Muro is easily the more interesting of the two. The simple yet hauntingly effective mask shielding half of Muro’s face adds sinister undercurrents, but Anaya’s unforced yet captivating work often speaks volumes. One particular scene with her at a party shows the character in an intriguingly vulnerable moment; Anaya expresses this all through looks and inflection, giving this undoubtedly vicious character more dimensions than one might expect. 

Then we get to our lead and our co-star. While a lot of people flat-out loved Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman in Batman V Superman, I was still sceptical. Whilst she was solid, I felt there wasn’t enough there to make me buy Gadot as this character. After seeing Wonder Woman, I’m sold 100%. Gadot is nothing short of sensational here; from her first scene, she imbues Diana with a grace and power which never once wavers throughout the film. Even more than that, though, Gadot nails Diana’s compassion. Even a small moment where she encourages one of her uncertain comrades brims with pure love and made me think ‘yeah, I would follow her into battle’. As great as Gadot is at portraying Diana’s strength and spirit, she is equally excellent with the fish-out-of-water comedy and especially in the magnetic chemistry she shares with Chris Pine. Speaking of Pine, he is terrific here as Steve Trevor. Very much the Lois Lane to Diana’s Superman, Pine never lets Steve fall into the simple classification of love interest. Trevor is smart, funny, capable of handling himself in a fight and isn’t afraid to speak his mind. While this is Gadot’s film through and through. Pine more than holds his own with her. Their charming and palpable rapport makes this one of the most romantic relationships I’ve yet seen in a comic-book film; a lot of the best scenes in the film simply consist of these two characters interacting. In fact, the character interactions across the board are so good here. It’s so easy to become invested in these characters, which makes the action more intense and powerful.

For merely her second time directing a film (and with a huge gap between this and her directorial debut in 2003’s Monster), Patty Jenkins proves herself to be capable of delivering truly rousing blockbuster spectacle. This is mostly thanks to the clear passion she brings to the project; from the first frame to the last, it never feels like Jenkins is being lazy or rushing it. Instead, her commitment to the project shines through in every scene. She also proves equally at home whether capturing a heart-to-heart between characters or Wonder Woman sending men flying across the room. In bringing this vision to the screen, she is aided immensely by the cast and crew, particularly the film’s writer Allan Seinberg. For a film which could have veered so far in the wrong direction, Seinberg’s script nails every important point with just the right amount of force or sensivity that is required. The dialogue is perfect for every tone, whether it be comedy (Samir gets the pick of the litter here), dramatic or straight bad-ass. While the work from everyone else involved in the film is fantastic, the team of Jenkins and Seinberg deserve stupendous credit for steering the ship in the right direction at every turn.

It would be remiss of me to discuss the expert execution of Wonder Woman without mentioned the spectacular technical credits. In the hands of editor Matthew Walsh, the film is edited and paced near-flawlessly, allowing the characters and the action to breathe without feeling rushed or drawn out. A great part of the pleasure derived from watching the film is simply from how magnificent it looks. Whether in the sun-drenched paradise that is Themyscira or the war-torn hell of No Man’s Land, Matthew Jensen’s cinematography is stunning and encapsulates the emotional breadth of the film magnificently. Aline Bonetto’s sublime production design and Lindy Hemming’s immaculate costume design certainly don’t hurt, magnificently portraying the culture of the Amazons and WW1-era London/France with the help of set decorator Anna Lynch-Robinson and a very talented art direction team. Finally, whilst I’ve mentioned it before, Rupert Gregson-Williams’ score is spell-binding and plays a huge role in the emotional investment I had while watching the film. It’s also very difficult to stop listening to it; in fact, I have listened to the score whilst writing this review.

Finally, I need to mention something which I was personally very thankful for with this film. When it comes to ‘feminist’ blockbusters, there has been something of a struggle with equality. The see-saw effect here can be seen most prominently in the work of director Paul Feig. While 2011’s Bridesmaids and 2015’s Spy gave both its male and female stars a chance to make an impression through the comedy and their characters (while I’m personally very lukewarm towards 2013’s The Heat, it also accomplishes this feat), 2016’s Ghostbusters angered me with its depiction of men. Don’t get me wrong; I had no problem with the Ghostbusters being women. My problem with the finished product was in the demonization of men. Whether idiots (I use this term lightly), incompetent or a straight-up bad guy out to destroy the world (for no other reason than bullying – compelling, huh?) who gets defeated when all four women shoot him in the groin, the men in Ghostbusters weren’t just treated with disdain. They were treated with downright venom. Well, in every way Ghostbusters failed to depict both genders with equal grace and opportunity, Wonder Woman succeeds with flying colours. While the film has a loving and strong heroine, there is also a nefarious villainess. While a man is one of the murderous antagonists, there are several men who prove to be not only useful in Diana’s journey but who are capable of handling themselves and don’t always need to be saved. There are characters of ethnic minorities and the moments where they acknowledge this are beautifully written and acted; this isn’t a character simply stating their ethnicity, colour or gender for a quick and hollow reaction (unlike that other film I might have discussed in negative detail), but rather them emphasising how this has shaped them and their lives. Simply put, there is a balance between men and women in all ethnic groups which shouldn’t be ignored. One of Wonder Woman’s most understated yet profound accomplishments is in its acknowledgement of this balance in both timely and timeless fashion, and it’s something which other films should aspire to emulate in the future.   

I honestly have very few complaints with Wonder Woman. Like I said before, the CGI is very noticeable and, although it doesn’t detract too much from the terrific action, it still could have been done better. This is most evident in the final battle, as it is the most reliant on CGI; I did still enjoy the final fight, but the effects could have been more accomplished. For a film so reliant on CGI, the lack of polish is still a flaw. Also, the film has obvious influences from the likes of 2011’s Captain America: The First Avenger and Thor, which become clearer with close inspection and could prove bothersome for some audience members. But, in this writer’s opinion, this is still the film which all other DCEU films should observe as a blue-print for success. As my friend said after leaving the story, ‘the main thing I need for a film to succeed is a good story’. Unlike the DCEU films which came before it, Wonder Woman has a good and well-told story, taking elements from its influences and melding them into a compelling tale all its own. Not only is it a rollicking action film, but it is also a film about dealing with oppression and stereotypes, making your own place in the world and standing up for what you believe in. This is a tale with a surprising amount of emotional weight, and the passion imbued by everyone involved carries that emotion with a steely purpose from start to finish. Wonder Woman more than earns the superlative in its title, and the character has earned her place in the pantheon of great heroes, both male and female.

Final Rating: 4.5 out of 5

 SPOILER THOUGHTS!!!


Biggest spoiler first: Lupin was Ares all along! Actually, it wasn't much of a surprise for me since Grace Rudolph already spoiled it for me in one of her video titles. Still, as long as it gives David Thewlis more to do, I'm not one to complain. I've been a fan of Thewlis ever since he nailed the character of Remus Lupin in 2004's Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban; even when he was reduced to glorified cameos in the later instalments of that series, he was still fantastic in everything he did. So to have him as one of the defining villains in Wonder Woman's mythology was awesome, and Thewlis nailed the role with his usual skill.