Wonder Woman (2017)

This afternoon, I finally joined the rest of civilization and saw Wonder Woman at the theater. Although continuing to receive stellar reviews and ecstatic praise, the film left me wondering if these critics and viewers were not so hungry for a female-centric action film that they overlooked some glaring flaws and missed potential in this underwhelming addition to the DC canon. 

On the surface, Wonder Woman certainly delivers: female heroine, female director, feminist themes. Yet, the film ultimately left me cold and slightly bored. The first act and third act were the strongest points, but the second act was a colossal mess of such sweeping proportions that it damaged the rest of the film. Nevertheless, there were elements that deserve praise. 

For one, the film got the character right. Here I must confess to knowing very, very little about the Wonder Woman comics. My brother, however, who accompanied me to the film, was most knowledgeable and reassured me that the film was true to Wonder Woman's character. Considering how grotesquely the DC universe perverted Superman's character in the unwatchable Man of Steel, this faithfulness is definitely worthy of celebration. 

Indeed, the strongest part of the film was the introduction to Wonder Woman's world. The film opens like a tale of Greek mythology, which I found inviting and interesting. Diana (Wonder Woman) lives with her mother on an island inhabited only by women. As a result, the world she knows is completely devoid of war or violence. Again, I stress I have not read the comics, but I was struck by the film's perhaps purposeful reference to Charlotte Perkins Gilman's Herland with its focus on femininity as strength within a world only inhabited by women. The photography was beautiful, and the inclusion of Greek mythology (and classic literature!) was refreshing.

I enjoyed Gal Gadot's performance as Diana immensely. She brought a combined vulnerability and strength to the role, her brown eyes expressing many conflicting emotions within Diana. Her athleticism was impeccable as well. 

When Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) enters the world, the film does become more exciting. I have to say, Chris Pine's acting was excellent, and his performance was my favorite in this film. The man absolutely needs to do more comedy; he has a natural gift for humor, even in scenes that were not intended to be humorous. I also completely disagree with some self-important editorials claiming the movie did not need him. All superhero movies have a love interest and some kind of goofy sidekick character (or fool); Pine's Steve Trevor fulfills both. He brought energy to his part that kept the movie going, even when it took a turn for the worse. 

The second act, as stressed earlier, was hands-down the worst part of the film. Descending into horrible, cheese-ball jokes and plot turns that made absolutely no sense, the middle section of the film was boring, silly, and above all stupid. The secretary character was obnoxious and made no sense. If Steve is a spy and no one can know his identity, why does she loudly announce who he is and do, as she puts it, "everything for him"? This was even sillier than Money Penny in the Bond films. 

One sequence in particular that made my head hurt was when Steve takes Diana shopping. The entire sequence felt like a parody of Mr. Selfridge (which is a fine show). It reached a point where I almost expected Jeremy Piven to pop out and ask if they were enjoying his store. It was ridiculous and boring, and it added nothing to the story or characters. There were also a number of heavy-handed attempts at feminist commentary, such as having a group of men question why a woman was allowed in their meeting, but it felt forced and didactic. 

The third act was exciting, and I actually liked the group of side characters introduced as part of Steve's team. The actors each brought some humor to the film and enriched the character development (small as it was). I also appreciated the film's embracing traditionally feminine characteristics as sources of strength. Protecting loved ones, preventing violence, treasuring children and innocents, these were all values Diana embodied, which strengthened the film's sociopolitical content. 

The fight scenes were decent--nothing spectacular, but not so poorly cut that the action was impossible to watch. Each act has a major battle sequence, giving the film some symmetry. The first battle, however, which takes place on the island felt ridiculous on reflection: why would all of these soldiers who just discovered a beautiful paradise completely populated with beautiful women scantily clad in leather who are shooting arrows at them simply go along with it? Wouldn't they be at least some what surprised? It was silly, truly, but to be fair one can only take a movie about a godlike woman with a magical lasso only so seriously. By comic book movie standards, the battles were entertaining, but the music was the stuff elevators were made for. Dull, dull, dull. Again, however, to be fair, there are no strong movie scores any more, so Wonder Woman is hardly alone. 

The main letdown for me was the film absolutely did not earn one speck of its emotional content. When Antiope (Robin Wright) dies, the boring, sad music appears, but I felt nothing. Frankly, her death was predictable the instant her character appeared on screen. As readers probably know by now, my most hated character trope is "The Character Who Is Obviously There to Die." It's the worst. It's nothing more than a cheap attempt at provoking emotions, but there is nothing to warrant any emotion at all. I was extremely disappointed that the film went there. The romantic plot felt forced, perhaps even more so. I did not feel the heat at all between the two leads, and the conclusion to their relationship again left me feeling nothing. Frankly, for me the only comic book film with genuine pathos is Spiderman 2, starring Tobey Maguire. But that is for another review. 

Is Wonder Woman worth seeing? Absolutely. It's easily the best of the DC films so far, offering three clear acts with three well-done action sequences. The acting is solid, as is the direction. There is little fat on this film; there was not one bit of gratuitous action. In fact, the action was rather limited, considering the genre, which was refreshing. I enjoyed watching the film and appreciated it for what it was. That being said, this was definitely not the masterpiece the Internet has made it out to be, but it's still worth a view. 

Grade: B

The Intern (2015)

Starring Robert De Niro and Anne Hathaway, The Intern is the latest from writer/director Nancy Meyers. Known for her sharp and sly style of romantic comedies, Meyers's filmography is varied in terms of quality, but usually one can expect a good, fun ride. The Intern begins this way, but loses its impact in a third act that is drowning in cliches and loose ends. 

Ben Whittaker (De Niro) is a 70 year old retired widower living in New York. His son lives in San Francisco, so Ben rarely gets to see any of his surviving family. He is engaged in many "senior citizen" activities, like Tai Chi, in an attempt to be around people and feel relevant. Upon seeing an ad for a seniors internship program, Ben feels he has found something that could bring some happiness and much needed connection to his life. He soon becomes an intern at a new online fashion company started by Jules Ostin (Hathaway). The relationship is rocky at first, but they soon become confidants and best friends, Jules becoming the daughter Ben so desperately needs, and Ben the father figure Jules never had. 

The first hour of this movie is terrific. De Niro gives a moving performance as a man who is wise to the world and sees things in his young colleagues that they themselves are oblivious to. There are humorous moments--my favorite being when Ben gives the young guys dating advice. Truly, the first act is full of meaningful and moving testaments to the realities of aging and changing generations. One of the saddest scenes is when Ben goes to a funeral, and it is pretty much the main social event for him and his friends. This scene resonated with me after watching this same situation happen to my grandmother. I truly loved Ben's character and found him both so sad and so loving. De Niro gives an already terrific character some substance. (I mean, it is Robert freakin' De Niro....)

Jules shows Ben how to use Facebook.

Anne Hathaway is well cast as the ambitious Jules. She's a bit of a hot mess, always forgetting her schedule and in great need of someone to appreciate her success and hard work. I found Jules very relatable, especially in her main conflict: her husband, Matt, is a stay-at-home dad to their daughter; as a result, he feels like Jules is spending too much time with her company and has encouraged her to hire a CEO to take over her company, alleviating much of the stress she endures. The depiction of marriage felt very true until the third act, which I will get to soon. We see Jules coming home and trying to put her daughter to bed, only to fall asleep as the girl reads to her. She and Matt are usually out of sync about spending time together or having sex. In addition to this, Jules faces harsh scrutiny from fellow mothers, co-workers, and CEOs she interviews for being a working mother. Soon into his internship, Ben becomes her driver and observes much about her life--the most upsetting being his witnessing Matt meeting a girlfriend. Ben gives her advice and respects her in a way no one else in the film does--not even her parents. He encourages her to reject this CEO idea and take credit for her own success. It's a beautiful relationship and what is really at the heart of this film. 

Truly, The Intern is wrestling with a number of important and timely issues: aging, gender, generation gaps, traditions, the changing economy, and feminism, among many others. I enjoyed the first half and laughed heartily at some of the antics--ones that can only come from Nancy Meyers. I was moved deeply by Ben's compassion and his wisdom. All of that being said, though, this film has too many loose ends and just does not gel in the third act. 

Throughout this movie, I felt I was watching a first draft of a classic. There was so much potential here, considering the themes, conflicts, and talent involved. Yet, there are too many story lines introduced and not followed through. Rene Russo plays Ben's love interest, but she's only in the film for maybe ten minutes. Jules's mother is cruel to her, and Jules has a rocky relationship with her parents; yet, we only hear two conversations between Jules and her mother on the phone. We don't even see the mother, let alone learn what lies beneath this conflict. All we do know is Jules's parents are sleep researchers, and Jules appears to have a serious sleep disorder. Neither of these elements is ever developed enough, though, and end up feeling tacked on. 

To me, the plot device that rang the least true was with Matt. The fact that he was having an affair felt very real, and I was actually glad Meyers decided to go that route. It brought another layer to Jules's inner conflict and enriched the drama of the film. Its resolution, however, was less believable: Matt returns to Jules, and their marriage is restored. While this may feel satisfying on some level, the film actually contradicts itself here. Jules already knew about the affair before Ben tells her. They discuss it while traveling to California to meet a potential CEO. When Jules says she just wants her marriage to go back to what it was before, Ben cautions her that that is not possible; he tells her he has almost never heard of a marriage surviving cheating. Why have this deep conversation only to wrap up the marriage with a bow? If Meyers had written this situation more truthfully--maybe have them agree to counseling, at the least--it would have felt more believable. As it stands now, it feels forced and cheesy. There is nothing in the movie to suggest Matt feels guilty or remorseful. In fact, there is little to suggest he even respects his wife and her success. 

The flaws aside, The Intern is worth seeing. If you're a fan of romantic comedies or just enjoy a sweet, light-hearted movie, then this is for you. It has a lot to offer in spite of its shortcomings, and the first two acts are really great. 

Grade: B+

Adam's Rib (1949)

This George Cukor-directed film is one of several classic pairings of Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn. Interestingly, it was written by Garson Kanin and...Ruth Gordon. Yes, you know. The inimitable Ruth Gordon who played nosy Satanist Minnie Castevet in Rosemary's Baby to such perfection she became the first actor to win an Oscar for a horror film. 

Iconic shot of Ruth Gordon in Rosemary's Baby

Apparently, Ruth Gordon was an accomplished screenwriter before becoming an actress, and she was also close friends with Katharine Hepburn. 

Adam's Rib is a delight from beginning to end and is a surprisingly feminist movie--surprising when one considers the fact it was released in 1949. Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn, who were together in real life, play married attorneys Adam and Amanda Bonner. Adam is a district attorney, Amanda a defense lawyer. Here's the trailer:

The film begins with Doris Attinger (played to perfection by another accomplished actress, Judy Holliday) tracking her philandering husband and shooting him in the shoulder while he is with his lover. She is arrested and charged with attempted murder. 

The next morning, the case makes the front page of the newspaper, which Adam and Amanda read together and which sparks a fierce debate between them: Amanda lectures Adam on double standards women face, especially before the law. When Adam arrives at work, he is appointed prosecutor to the case. When Amanda learns of this, she decides to become Doris Attinger's lawyer, and the gender debate begins full throttle! 

Honestly, this movie would be controversial for today, so I can only speculate about how audiences reacted to this film in 1949. During each courtroom scene Adam and Amanda question witnesses, and Amanda bases her entire case on women's inequality, showing the prosecution's witnesses no mercy when it comes to their own misogyny. In fact, during jury selection, her standard for each potential juror is whether they believe in women's equality. She tells the press and stresses in her opening statement that this case is about more than the defendant; it is about women being treated equally before the law. One of the most humorous and interesting scenes is when Amanda brings in high powered women as witnesses for the defense to prove women are equal to men. We see jaws drop and Amanda glowing with satisfaction as each of these witnesses describes how many degrees and positions she has. 

Although Spencer Tracy had top billing for this film, it is Katharine Hepburn with whom the audience identifies and for whom we cheer. The film portrays Amanda's case as more sophisticated and more important than Adam's, which is hammered home by his feckless closing argument in which he jumbles his words and makes little sense. Judy Holliday gives a smart, although supporting, performance as a woman who has suffered much physical abuse from her husband. In a rather touching scene in which she meets with her counsel (Hepburn) for the first time, she reluctantly recounts the times her husband beat her--all of which Amanda uses in her cross examination of the husband. 

The film ends on a comical note that does, to an extent, descend into the politics of its era (something that I expected and feel would have been impossible to avoid), but it rallies in the last scene, again stressing and celebrating women's right to equality. And it is hilarious: After Adam announces to Amanda that he will run as a Republican candidate for a judgeship, Amanda asks slyly if the Democrats have selected a candidate yet. I burst out laughing during this scene as I did many times throughout the film.

In addition, the film makes some interesting choices in its portrayal of marriage--choices that would be completely taboo in the fifties, if they were not already by 1949. For one, we see Adam and Amanda sharing one bed. From almost all movies of that era, husbands and wives had to have separate beds to avoid any possible reference to sex. Also, there is a rather hilarious (and, for its time, risque) scene in which Adam and Amanda, wearing only towels, give each other massages as they debate the case and women's rights. Something that is absent from the movie, interestingly, is children: not once do Amanda or Adam mention kids, and at the time this came out Hepburn and Tracy were in their 40s and 50s, respectively. We, in other words, are not exactly expecting Amanda to quit her job to have babies any time soon. By making Amanda a powerful attorney, one who works not just alongside her husband but who challenges him, and avoiding any reference to her as some sort of domestic goddess, the film confirms its arguments about equality (unlike The Thrill of it All (1963) that is relentlessly anti-feminist). 

All in all, Adam's Rib is a smart, funny, and progressive film that fully embraces feminism in a way that we don't even see now. You will find yourself cheering for Katharine Hepburn throughout. This is a classic for a reason. 

Grade: A