mollyfamwatVoor de nieuwe film Wonder Woman (HBO Max, 25 december) is het fatsoenlijk om genegeerd te worden. This means that, apart from the fact that there is something important in the post-credit scene that critics previously didn’t know about, Wonder Woman 1984 is completely free of all the world-building torments that Warner Bros. has tried to do to his DC Comics properties in recent years. There are no conclusions about Superman, Batman or the Flash Armada. It’s the whole story of Diana Prince, something in itself – which always depends on the main film of her establishment.
The film tries to captivate as it unfolds
The film, coordinated with Patty Jenkins’ slow motion, discovers Diana the Themyscira alive and dead 66 years after the events of her last release. She has a nice job at the Smithsonian, a great loft and a surprisingly better wardrobe. On the whole he misses his extraordinary love, Steve (because in reality all extraordinary loves are called Steve). He kicked the bucket into the home stretch of Wonder Woman’s 2017 performance. His death was an extraordinary chivalrous atonement, so Diana can’t mourn too much. She misses him and she wants him back somehow. We probably all wish for something like this, big and unimaginable. It is a sad state of lonely misery that Wonder Woman 1984 uses as an engine.
The film is about a magical object, and a man decides to use it for a mischievous conclusion. It’s like a thousand curious comic strips before the class became so unbearable, and many rooms accepted by every semblance of Indiana Jones and, all in all, Scrooge McDuck. In his best moments – let’s say, in the most important hour of the film – WO84, with its old-fashioned features, its country mystery, its ridiculous scalawag, its clever legend, is delightfully charming. The film is light, brilliant and energetic like you won’t see anywhere else in the DC universe. Absolute fun, in a brightly coloured shopping mall with space for wonderful waterfalls. The film resembles the ’80s, but in all its gruesome authenticity.
The artists, among others, set the tone well. Lady Gadot ventures into the privilege of majestic power with a wink, but she also allows Diana’s intimacy to isolate itself around her like a pale glow. She is warm but distant, a reality reflected in Barbara, an employee of the Smithsonian, who must be, and perhaps should be, desperate for Diane. (Unfortunately, this is about the most interesting event to do something fascinating). It is performed by Kristen Wiig, who skillfully balances Barbara’s stuttering, hypnotic clumsiness. Then Pedro Pascal gives Pascal a big weasel TV shower with megalomaniac dots. They all seem to have a beautiful past that repels Jenkins’ vibrant and temperate world.
Return of the Dead Lover
As if ruined by the trailers, Chris Pine returns as Steve and carries an air of the advanced, even though his character went to jail in 1918. There’s something excessively fresh and, frankly, wonderful about Pine’s motifs in the film; it detracts from the beautifully underestimated and inherited reality to which Jenkins refers. Although he probably intended to cover his tracks, the plot of the film makes it a global threat by sending Diana around the world to repair a catastrophic shipwreck. The remarkable evolution of the issue is fascinating until it skips a few steps, a psychological test of what unbridled desire can do to urban life that comes to an end too quickly. This is the entropy of so many superhuman films that evoke great memories by tuning things, but that collapse when those tuned parts have to be put into causal motion.
Jenkins, who wrote the script together with Jeff Jones and David Callaham, is not really disgusted by his own subject. It leaves him terribly confused. But on the way to the top, after the passionate reverberation, he didn’t quite succeed. Wiig and Pascal add a more discreet tone to the more authentic scenes, but generally Barbara does the work quickly. She disappears for a while, and she misses me terribly. A game like Pascal, it seems. We think he was dumped and Vig moved in the middle, with Barbara’s excursion into the terrible alignment of the whole, a staggering resistance that is fundamentally acceptable to Diane.
Wonder Woman 1984 Control Entertainment
Jenkins, as in the film, always has a strict order of material science. Diana’s rope breaks and sparkles, swinging in agile turns. The sloppy style of photography, which is so intensely loved in the action scenes of the main war film, is used all the more discreetly here. This leads to an activity that seems more flexible, natural and universal. In general, there are a lot of superhero stuff worth enjoying, even if it’s not.
There is no doubt that Wonder Woman would have been better played on the silver screen in 1984. This is due to the extra degree and size, and the fact that there would have been many more extravagant experiences in the strong group. When you’re sitting in your love chair, in your tight, homemade air hole, the effect isn’t as strong as it was on delivery. He has a chance to make popcorn of impeccable quality, but he struggles to maintain the glory that makes the blockbuster a success. This is not much appreciated – so apart from the heaviness of the realistic universe, the film is more liberating, more moving. But at the same time, it’s probably a bad indication of what’s coming. It’s like Warner Brothers reducing all tents and therapists to the size of a lawn.
Related Tags:
wonder woman movie 2020,wonder woman 2020,wonder woman 1984 cast,wonder woman movies
mollyfamwat
Wesley_Hornbeck
