The Mummy (2017) review

From 1923 to 1960, Universal Studios was best known for their wide variety of monster films, featuring iconic characters like Dracula, Frankenstein’s monster, and the Wolf Man, just to name a few. Many of them were huge critical and commercial hits in their time and, thus, still stand as some of the greatest films in the horror genre. Since then, these classic monsters have gone through various re-imaginings over the years, though usually not through Universal. Their only credited ‘remakes’ to date are the Mummy trilogy starring Brendan Fraser, a 1979 adaptation of Dracula, 2004’s Van Helsing, 2010’s The Wolfman, and 2014’s Dracula Untold. That last film was intended to be the first in a new line of Universal Monster films set within a shared universe a la the Marvel Cinematic Universe. However, in the years since its release, it’s been retroactively dismissed from the studio’s overall plans. Thus, here we are now with the ‘real’ first official entry in this new line of Universal Monster films; The Mummy. Alex Kurtzman, co-writer of the first two Star Trek reboot films and other various franchise efforts, directs the first installment of a series that’s being dubbed as the Dark Universe. Several ‘re-imaginings’ are in the works at this moment, but for now, it all starts with Universal’s second major reboot of their 1932 horror classic, The Mummy. However, despite the best efforts of Kurtzman and his stacked ensemble cast, led by Tom Cruise, Russell Crowe, and Sofia Boutella in the title role, this new take on The Mummy suffers from a bland script that ultimately makes it a rather dull affair.

In modern-day Iraq, a team of military operatives, led by Sgt. Nick Morton (Tom Cruise), come across an ancient Egyptian tomb despite being thousands of miles from Egypt. Morton and his team, including Sgt. Chris Vail (Jake Johnson) and archaeologist Jenny Halsey (Annabelle Wallis), soon learn that this tomb is the resting place for a former princess named Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella). Back in her day, she was slated to be next in line for the throne of Egypt as the only offspring of the current king. However, those plans change when her father’s new wife ends up having a son. Making a deal with the deity Set, she kills her father, his wife, and their newborn son, but is mummified alive before managing to give Set a human body to inhabit as per their agreement. Back in the present, the efforts of Nick’s team to excavate Ahmanet’s coffin from the tomb cause a chain reaction of events that results in the destruction of their plane when they leave the area, with Nick having seemingly gone down with it. However, he somehow miraculously survives this, something that confounds him just as much as it does his peers. To make matters worse, Ahmanet ends up escaping from her coffin and continues her efforts to become ruler of the world. And as Nick finds out, these plans of hers end up involving him as well when Ahmanet prepares to have him be her new human sacrifice for Set. While this is going on, Nick also comes across a mysterious organization known as ‘Prodigium’, led by scientist Dr. Henry Jekyll (Russell Crowe), that investigates into matters like this. 

It seems like this new Mummy is trying to be a mix of both the 1932 original and the 1999 remake. In other words, whereas the 1999 remake was primarily an action-adventure flick, this new film tries to combine elements from both that and the original, which was strictly a horror film. It’s a shame, really, that it ultimately doesn’t deliver as either a horror film or an action-adventure film. I mean, it may just be because I’m not a big horror fan compared to others, but I didn’t find this film to be that ‘scary’. Instead, it ultimately feels more like the action-oriented romps that the Brendan Fraser Mummy films were... and yet even that aspect of the film is mediocrely done. To the film’s credit, the action sequences are, at the very least, well-directed, and everything’s fine from a technical perspective. However, it feels like these action sequences are few and far between in this because every other scene is exposition-based, making the entire film feel slow and uneventful. I’m usually not one to criticize trailers for revealing too much, but this is a legitimate instance where the trailers basically showed off every major sequence in this film. But then what about the film’s efforts to establish a full-on cinematic universe based around the Universal Monsters? Well, even that aspect feels underdeveloped as there are no real allusions to other monsters in this aside from the appearance of Dr. Jekyll and his evil counterpart, Mr. Hyde. I mean, I’m not saying that these films should be exactly like Marvel, where they can have other characters appear in films where they’re not the focus. This is, after all, just the first installment of a new series. But, still, it would’ve at least helped in this instance because it could’ve made this film more interesting. As is, it feels more like it’s setting up future Dark Universe films instead of trying to be a Mummy film.  

The dull and underdeveloped nature of the script also ends up affecting the film’s main characters, who are all generally bland. Tom Cruise is fine as he always is, and Annabelle Wallis is solid as well as the film’s main female lead, but neither get anything major to work with. This is the case despite everything that happens to the former in this film, while the latter is simply relegated to being a ‘damsel in distress’ most of the time. Technically speaking, Jake Johnson gets more to work with in this than either of them combined, and yet his whole role in the film is to just pop in and out from time to time with what I can basically describe as ‘humorous’ commentary (I use the term ‘humorous’ loosely because this film’s efforts at humor are lackluster at best) that only Cruise’s character can witness because, minor spoiler, Johnson’s character gets infected by Ahmanet and becomes one of her minions. Speaking of Ahmanet, Sofia Boutella is also fine enough in her respective role and it is a nice twist to have the main Mummy villain be a female this time around. However, like her co-stars, she is severely hindered by the mediocre material that she’s working with. In fact, she doesn’t really do that much in this which, sadly, means that her character comes off as being not much of a threat in the grand scheme of things. Thus, the most interesting character in the film ends up being Russell Crowe as Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde. Again, this is another prime example of a character who’s clearly being set up to have a larger role in future films. Still, for the brief screen-time that he has in this film, Crowe ends up having the best screen presence out of the entire cast, especially when he’s in his ‘Mr. Hyde’ phase.   

Going in, you wouldn’t expect a Mummy film starring Tom Cruise to be dull… and yet, this film somehow ended up doing exactly that. Now, I don’t blame this on director Alex Kurtzman; he, at least, does a solid enough job when it comes to directing, especially in terms of the film’s action sequences. Ultimately, the film’s biggest issues lie in its script. Not only does this film suffer from a mediocre plot, but it feels like it’s just meant to be set-up for future entries in this new Dark Universe instead of being a Mummy film. And because of this, it fails to make much of an impression, effectively stranding its talented ensemble cast in a slow and ho-hum attempt at mixing elements of action and horror. However, I’m still generally optimistic about this Dark Universe. For one thing, out of all the proposed cinematic universes that have been tossed around in the news from Transformers to Ghostbusters, this plan of doing a universe around Universal’s monsters arguably has the most potential because it has happened before back when this series was in its prime (e.g. Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man). Besides, we just came off an instance where the fate of a planned Cinematic Universe was saved with a critically-acclaimed outing via Wonder Woman and the DC Extended Universe. In other words, one disastrous effort, even if it’s the first installment of a new series as this film is, doesn’t automatically mean that the entire franchise is dead on arrival (no pun intended). Thus, I’m looking forward to the next installment of this Dark Universe franchise; a new take on Bride of Frankenstein directed by Bill Condon. I strongly feel that this one could work because Condon is no stranger to the material, having directed a 1998 film titled Gods and Monsters which focused on that film’s production. As for The Mummy, though, it’s not ‘god-awful’ or anything; it’s just that it could’ve been a lot better given the talent involved.

Rating: 2/5

The Mummy Trilogy (1999-2008) Retrospective

Universal Studios is perhaps best known for the numerous monster films that they produced over the span of four decades (i.e. the 20’s to the 50’s). Classic films like Dracula, Frankenstein, and The Wolf Man were huge critical and commercial hits back in the day, and have since been regarded as some of the most iconic films in the horror genre. One of these films was 1932’s The Mummy, starring Boris Karloff in his second major Universal Monsters role after playing the monster in Frankenstein as an ancient Egyptian priest named Imhotep who is buried alive when he attempts to resurrect his forbidden lover, Princess Ankh-es-en-Amon. Centuries later, he is re-awakened by a group of archeologists and continues his quest to reunite with the love of his life. I previously reviewed this film during my Universal Monsters retrospective this past October. In that post, I noted that while I felt that it was one of the weaker entries in the Universal Monsters lineup, it still had some great elements to it, from some effectively atmospheric moments to Boris Karloff’s underrated turn in the title role; at least, underrated when compared to his turn as Frankenstein’s monster. After the original’s release, it was followed by four sequels in the 40’s and 50’s, though the term ‘sequel’ is used loosely in this instance because these films focused on a different Mummy, Kharis. The last one even featured comedy duo Abbott and Costello in what was one of their many crossovers with the Universal Monsters, including the previously reviewed Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein. Four years after Universal’s franchise ended, famed horror studio Hammer Films would create their own Mummy franchise. It ran from 1959 to 1971 and the first film, simply titled The Mummy, starred the studio’s biggest icons, Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, the latter of whom played the title role.

But today, we’re looking at Universal’s first major attempt at rebooting this classic franchise; an attempt that shifted this horror classic into an action-adventure series. In 1999, director Stephen Sommers’ The Mummy was released in theaters and it became a massive commercial hit. It was so successful that it spawned two sequels, a spin-off prequel that spawned a few sequels itself albeit direct-to-video ones, an animated series which ran for two seasons on the Kids’ WB block in the early 2000’s (one that I do distinctly remember watching as a kid), and a popular roller-coaster ride at several Universal theme parks. This week, Universal revives this classic franchise with a new reboot, starring Tom Cruise, Russell Crowe, and Sofia Boutella, in what is intended to be the first installment in a new line of Universal Monster films set within a shared universe. Only time will tell if this ‘Dark Universe’ (as they’re calling it) manages to work, but in honor of the new Mummy’s release, today we’ll be looking back at the previous Mummy trilogy, which ran from 1999 to 2008 and starred Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz. To be clear, I’m only covering the theatrically-released Mummy films. I will not be reviewing any of the direct-to-video Scorpion King films. However, just for the hell of it, I will be including the theatrically-released Scorpion King film from 2002 in this retrospective because it is the series’ official spin-off. And, really, this is the only instance where I could possibly do so because I am not planning on reviewing those direct-to-video sequels anytime soon and probably never will. With that in mind, it’s time to do what Brendan Fraser does best in these films; ‘Rescue the damsel in distress, kill the bad guy, save the world’. Okay, maybe not all that but, still, here are my reviews of the recent Mummy trilogy.

THE MUMMY (1999)

It all started in 1999 when director Stephen Sommers released his remake of Universal’s seminal horror flick, The Mummy. But instead of maintaining the atmospheric horror elements of the original, Sommers opted for a big-budget action-adventure blockbuster reminiscent of the Indiana Jones films. And while watching this film, you can certainly sense the similarities that it shares with a film like Raiders of the Lost Ark. It’s nowhere near as iconic as Raiders, mind you, but it is still entertaining even if it’s basically just a dumb action flick. Most of the film’s action set-pieces are solid as is its overall production design. The visuals, on the other hand, though… yeah, the CGI in this film has dated quite a bit, something that’s quite noticeable anytime that it pops up (e.g. the titular Mummy (Imhotep) when he’s first re-awakened, many of the wide shots, etc.) despite being one of the major elements of the film. As for the cast, Brendan Fraser is solid enough in the role of lead Rick O’Connell, Rachel Weisz is arguably the biggest standout of them all as female lead Evelyn Carnahan, and John Hannah provides some funny bits of humor as Evelyn’s bumbling brother Jonathan (“Americans…”). In short, the 1999 remake of The Mummy is far from perfect, but as an old-fashioned summer blockbuster, its unabashed spirit is there in spades and that’s at least appreciated. Sure, it’s aged quite a bit compared to today’s standards (pun not intended since this film is about mummies), but it does deliver, for the most part, on what it’s trying to be.

Rating: 3.5/5

THE MUMMY RETURNS (2001)

After the first Mummy proved to be a smash-hit at the box-office, Universal immediately greenlit a sequel; thus, Sommers and the main cast returned for the fittingly titled sequel, The Mummy Returns. This film notably served as the feature film debut of the one and only Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson, who plays the villainous ‘Scorpion King’. However, his role in the film is ultimately a minor one; he only appears at the beginning of the film and at the end (somewhat; I’ll explain in a bit). It wasn’t until the character’s spin-off the following year when he finally ascended to the status of leading man. As for Returns, though, it’s basically the same general situation as its predecessor. Admittedly, in some areas, this one is more entertaining, kind of, due to a faster pace. But, at the same time, this means that the film is basically an onslaught of action sequences that leave little time for any character development. By comparison, the first film, even though it, too, was a dumb action flick, at least took the time to flesh out its main characters. Like the original, though, the film does have some solid action set-pieces and a great production design which, for the most part, makes up for the visuals which, once again, have dated horribly. I mean, many have already pointed out the infamous scene in which Rick fights the re-awakened Scorpion King (hence what I said earlier about Dwayne Johnson’s ‘appearance’ in the finale) but, really, the same can be said for almost all the film’s CGI effects. For a film that had a budget of $98 million, a budget that clearly must’ve been focused on the effects… I have the feeling that these effects were regarded as subpar even back when it was released. Thus, I ultimately find myself rating this film the same way that I did the first; it’s entertaining in parts but there are other elements in it that have not aged well.

Rating: 3.5/5

THE SCORPION KING (2002)

Before he became known as one of the most charismatic actors in the business, Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson was transitioning from his career in wrestling to one in film in the early 2000’s. As noted earlier, he made his official film debut in The Mummy Returns. But, as noted earlier, he basically only had a cameo in that. However, the studio liked his character, Mathayus the Scorpion King, enough that they decided to give him his own spin-off. Thus, one year later, the Rock finally got his first leading role in The Scorpion King, in which his character was re-tooled into a protagonist. And, overall, it’s very much a spin-off of the Mummy films; it’s a generally mindless affair and it’s even a bit derivative at times. For one thing, the main character’s love interest is a sorceress who will lose her powers if she loses her virginity… you know, like Solitaire from Live and Let Die? But even with this in mind, I will admit that I found it to be an entertaining film, even if its kick-ass theme song, ‘I Stand Alone’ by Godsmack… is basically the only thing that people remember about this film nowadays. For one thing, I will give the film credit for not taking itself too seriously, as there is a pleasantly light-hearted feel to it. Sure, this does sometimes result in bits of humor that try way too hard to warrant laughs, but at just 92 minutes long, this is an easy watch. Plus, after the highly mediocre effects of The Mummy Returns, this film does at least utilize as many practical effects and stunts as it possibly can (e.g. Dwayne Johnson recently revealed in a YouTube video that real killer ants were used in the scenes where Mathayus is about to executed by the main villain’s guards). And while it may only be his first leading role, Johnson does show some early signs of that great charisma that he’s well-known for. Thus, while it may be a bit forgettable, The Scorpion King is, at the very least, a decent attempt at a spin-off… a spin-off that somehow managed to warrant a prequel and two sequels in the years since despite Johnson’s absence.

Rating: 3/5

THE MUMMY: TOMB OF THE DRAGON EMPEROR (2008)

This rebooted franchise concluded in 2008 with The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor. As the title suggests, it shifted the action from Egypt to China and it also saw a change in direction, with Rob Cohen (director of the original Fast and the Furious) taking over as director. However, it’s also the weakest installment of the trilogy by a long shot. The potential for some decent action sequences is wasted via shoddy editing and cinematography which, based on what I’ve heard about Cohen’s infamous adaptation of Alex Cross, is sort of becoming a common factor in his films. And, once again, the film’s visual effects are quite mediocre; seriously, this franchise never managed to catch a break when it came to CGI. Ironically, though, this film had the biggest budget of any entry in the series to date at around $145 million (Here’s hoping that the new Mummy will have better effects). Another big detriment is the loss of Rachel Weisz in the role of Evelyn. Though, to be fair, if she didn’t come back because of the script, which is one of the rumored reasons as to why she didn’t, then I wouldn’t blame her. Maria Bello takes over the role in this film and while she is a good actress, she’s severely underused and her chemistry with Brendan Fraser lacks the great dynamic that he and Weisz had. As I alluded to earlier, I’d argue that Rachel Weisz was the best part about the first two films, as her character was both the most charismatic and most interesting (e.g. in the second film, we learn that, in a past life, she was an Egyptian princess). Here, though, the character isn’t given anything to do despite what we’ve seen from her in previous films. It also doesn’t help that the film overdoes it when it comes to humor; seriously, even The Scorpion King was better at this. In short, I don’t mind the idea of this franchise exploring different ‘mummy-type’ scenarios outside of Egypt. However, that concept went nowhere because Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, despite doing as well commercially as its predecessors, ended up being a massive dud that effectively killed the franchise, hence why we have the new film that’s coming out this week.

Rating: 0.5/5

Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie (2017) review

Now, I know what some of you might be thinking; why the heck am I reviewing a film called Captain Underpants? Seems ridiculous, doesn’t it? Well, it isn’t that ridiculous to me, and that’s because, like many kids of my generation, I grew up with this film’s source material. Yes, what we have here is a film that’s based off a popular book series of the same name by author Dav Pilkey. The Adventures of Captain Underpants: The First Epic Novel, a story about a pair of elementary school students who unintentionally turn their principal into a superhero, was first published in 1997 and was a major best-seller. It would ultimately go on to spawn a full-blown series, with the most recent (and final) entry, book #12, released back in 2015. At the same time, though, the books have often been banned in school libraries due to their [admittedly] juvenile humor. Still, they’ve been a big hit with their target audience, having sold over 70 million copies worldwide. And now, the famous superhero who’s ‘faster than a speeding waistband, more powerful than boxer shorts, and able to leap tall buildings without getting a wedgie’ stars in his own feature film; Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie. This new film comes courtesy of DreamWorks Animation and is notably their last feature film released through their current distributor, 20^th Century Fox, before they begin their new partnership with Universal in 2019. And as surprising as it may seem, this adaptation of a book series about a principal who turns into an underwear-themed superhero every time someone snaps their fingers and is only reverted to normal when doused with water… is one of the most faithful book-to-film adaptations in recent memory.

Like the books that they’re based on, the film follows the adventures of fourth graders George Beard (Kevin Hart) and Harold Hutchins (Thomas Middleditch). These two best friends spend most of their time creating their own comics and causing all sorts of pranks at their elementary school, Jerome Horwitz Elementary, to provide their classmates with a temporary reprieve from the grim goings-on that occur there daily. However, this soon ends up attracting the attention of their mean principal, Mr. Krupp (Ed Helms), who threatens to put the two boys in separate classrooms if they get caught again. To prevent this from happening, George and Harold try to hypnotize him with a ‘3-D Hypno-Ring’ that George got from a cereal box. To their surprise, the ring does indeed work, allowing them to make Mr. Krupp do whatever they want. This culminates in them commanding Mr. Krupp to act like the main protagonist from their comics, Captain Underpants, a superhero who literally only wears his underpants along with a red cape. However, this joke soon turns into a serious dilemma when Mr. Krupp begins to go around the city acting like a superhero… even though he doesn’t have any real superpowers. As such, this forces George and Harold to keep an eye on him so that he doesn’t hurt himself. And things get even more complicated when a scientist named Professor Poopypants (Nick Kroll; and yes, that’s his name, Professor Poopypants) comes to town intent on ridding humanity of the part of the brain that causes them to laugh as revenge for the years of ridicule that’s he endured over his ridiculous name.

Even though it’s been a while since I’ve read these books (I stopped reading them during the time when the series was on a temporary hiatus due to author Dav Pilkey taking time off to care for his father, who died in 2008), I found this film to be a highly faithful adaptation of its source material. The plot is, basically, a combination of elements from various installments. In other words, while the main plot generally follows the same structure of the first book, the film’s main villain, Professor Poopypants, first debuted in the fourth book, Captain Underpants and The Perilous Plot of Professor Poopypants, the evil sentient toilets from the second book, Captain Underpants and the Attack of the Talking Toilets, make an appearance, and there are several Easter eggs throughout that tie into various other entries of the series. Ultimately, though, the film does a fantastic job of capturing the overall feel and tone of the books. It never takes itself too seriously and it maintains the same general style of self-aware humor. Heck, they even managed to incorporate the iconic ‘Flip-O-Rama’ sections from the books, in which readers flipped pages back and forth to simulate action scenes, into the narrative. On that note, the screenplay by Nicholas Stoller is full of hilarious bits of dialogue. I mean, admittedly, I wouldn’t say that this film is an absolute comedic riot. And, yes, the humor is often just as juvenile as it was in the books so it won’t go over well with everyone. Still, there are plenty of great jokes as well as some hilarious visual gags throughout that satirize the superhero genre. At the same time, there’s also some surprisingly heartfelt moments in this as well, namely through the friendship of the main characters.

Unlike most DreamWorks Animation films, this film’s animation was handled by a different studio, Mikros Image. This allowed the film to have a cheaper budget compared to DreamWorks’ other projects in the wake of some of their more recent efforts underperforming at the box-office. And, overall, the animation in this film is solid. It’s very reminiscent of what Blue Sky Studios did on The Peanuts Movie, managing to establish a 2-Dish feel in this computer animated film. And just like The Peanuts Movie, this is a great way to pay homage to the original source material as, in this instance, it feels like a comic book coming to life. Heck, they even have a whole sequence done with sock puppets. As for the voice cast, the film assembles a solid group of voices to fit each role. It may seem a bit weird at first to hear famous voices like Kevin Hart and Thomas Middleditch portraying fourth graders, but they both do excellent jobs in the roles of George and Harold, respectively. But perhaps most importantly, the two have phenomenal camaraderie, doing justice to the friendship of these two classic characters which, as mentioned earlier, is ultimately the heart of the film. Meanwhile, Ed Helms is a nice pick for the dual role of Mr. Krupp AKA Captain Underpants. He provides the right amount of diabolicalness for when Krupp’s his normal self but then switches seamlessly into a charismatic persona when he’s the friendly but admittedly dimwitted superhero, Captain Underpants. And, finally, Nick Kroll gets some great bits of humor as well in the role of the main villain Professor Poopypants, mainly due to the exact reason that you’re thinking about (i.e. his name). I mean, between this and Sausage Party, Kroll does quite a great job when it comes to animated villain roles.

I cannot believe that I’m saying this but… Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie is one of the most satisfying adaptations that I’ve ever seen. I mean, let’s face it, you don’t often get a film like this that is THIS faithful to the source material. And yet this film very much succeeds in capturing the spirit of the Captain Underpants books, right down to the implementation of their iconic running gags like ‘Flip-O-Rama’. Seriously, even though it’s been years since I’ve read these books, watching this film legitimately made me feel like a kid again, reading through these books and going on these wacky adventures with George and Harold. But, aside from that, the film’s just a fun superhero adventure through and through. The animation’s nice and colorful, excellently representing the visual style of the books, and the screenplay by Nicholas Stoller is full to the brim with great humor. At the same time, though, there’s also some unexpectedly heartfelt moments in this as well, primarily through the great friendship of George and Harold. Ultimately, it’s just a great feel-good film that celebrates imagination through the crazy antics that George, Harold, and Captain Underpants get into. Thus, to make a long story short (See what I did there? It’s a nod to the books, which always had one chapter that tied up all loose ends in just one sentence, hence why they’re always titled ‘To Make a Long Story Short…”), who would’ve guessed that an adaptation of a book series that has, no joke, been around for two whole decades now (Feel old yet?) would turn out this good? 

Rating: This may seem crazy, but… 5/5!

Wonder Woman (2017) review

(I’ve been informed by my peers that today happens to be ‘Wonder Woman Day’, which marks the 75^th anniversary of the iconic character’s debut. How fitting, then, that this occurs right at the time that her long-awaited feature film is about to have an epic opening weekend, hence why I made sure to get this review out on this big day. Enjoy!)

Admittedly, Warner Bros.’ attempts at creating a cinematic universe based around the characters of DC Comics, just like what Marvel Studios has been doing for the past decade with their Marvel Cinematic Universe, have had rather rocky results recently. It wasn’t that big of an issue at first when the series started in 2013 with the Superman reboot, Man of Steel. While the film did prove to be one of the most polarizing releases of that year, it was a solid commercial hit and effectively built up enough hype for future installments. But then, things got rough for Warner Bros. and DC in 2016. It’s a shame, really, because that was supposed to be a big year for them, as their two primary releases were some of the most anticipated films of the year. However, both these films, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Suicide Squad, ended up getting completely savaged by critics. And unlike Man of Steel, while both films did do well at the box-office, it seemed like those who didn’t like them outnumbered those that did this time around. It certainly didn’t help matters when it became clear that both films were subjected to questionable editing jobs in post-production, resulting in the necessity for alternate cuts when they were released to home media. Thus, this year is an important one for Warner Bros., DC, and the ‘DC Extended Universe’. Because if this year’s outings end up attracting the same critical vitriol as their 2016 slate, it puts the future of this entire cinematic universe in jeopardy. Thankfully, they’re starting off big this year with a film based around a character who’s been long overdue for a cinematic adaptation; the Amazonian demigoddess known as Wonder Woman.

When it comes to DC, Wonder Woman stands right alongside Batman and Superman to form ‘the Trinity’, the most iconic trio of superheroes in the DC lineup. Created by psychologist William Moulton Marston in 1941, Princess Diana of Themyscira would go on to become arguably the most famous superheroine in the history of comics. However, it took quite some time before she made her debut on the big-screen. Prior to this, her most famous onscreen adaptation was the TV series Wonder Woman, starring Lynda Carter in the title role and produced from 1975 to 1979. However, efforts since then to make a Wonder Woman feature film, even from the likes of filmmakers like Joss Whedon, have come and gone to no avail. Wonder Woman ultimately made her official film debut in last year’s Batman v Superman, played by Gal Gadot, in which she was considered one of the primary highlights of the film. Now, Gadot headlines her own solo film, Wonder Woman, which is very much a big deal. It’s the first big female-led superhero film of this current era of the superhero genre (disclaimer: by ‘current era’, I mean everything since the MCU started back in 2008), and it’s also the first major summer tent-pole film directed by a woman. In this instance, that director is Patty Jenkins, best known for directing 2003’s Monster. She almost directed Marvel Studios’ 2013 outing, Thor: The Dark World, but she ended up leaving that project due to creative differences. Here, though, through her terrific direction and Gal Gadot’s fantastic turn in the title role, DC’s iconic superheroine gets the terrific film adaptation that she very much deserves.

Long before she ever got involved with the likes of Batman and Superman, entrepreneur Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) was Princess Diana of the hidden Amazonian paradise known as Themyscira, ruled by her mother, Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen). Against her mother’s wishes, she is trained by her aunt, General Antiope (Robin Wright), to become one of Themyscira’s Amazonian warriors. One day, a pilot named Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) somehow manages to enter Themyscira when his plane crashes into the ocean. Diana saves him and he explains to her and her people that he’s a spy working for the Allies in World War I. He’s just recently stolen valuable information from a German weapons facility, where General Erich Ludendorff (Danny Huston) and his top scientist Dr. Isabel Maru AKA Doctor Poison (Elena Anaya) are developing a new form of mustard gas that threatens to cause millions of casualties if it’s completed. Believing that the war is being caused by the Amazonians’ mortal enemy, Ares the God of War, Diana leaves the safety of her home to help Steve get the information that he’s collected to his superiors in London. Eventually, the two end up going straight into the action, as Diana seeks to hunt down whoever Ares is so that she can hopefully bring an end to this dreadful war.

One of the main criticisms of previous DCEU films have been towards their overall tone. Compared to the more light-hearted affairs of the MCU, the DCEU films have been more serious in tone. However, most critics have felt that the DCEU films have gone too far with this idea to the point of being incredibly dour, which they feel is not the right kind of atmosphere for superhero films of this nature. That is not the case with Wonder Woman. Even amidst the backdrop of the dreadful First World War, there are plenty of great bits of humorous dialogue here and there to lighten the mood, primarily whenever Diana attempts to ‘fit in’ amongst society (e.g. in one scene, she’s seen trying out some ‘inconspicuous’ clothing and proceeds to question its use in combat). At the same time, our main heroine is given a terrific arc, as we see her go from a naïve young woman who’s unaware of what goes on outside Themyscira to a confident leader in battle. But then, as a result, her perception of humanity is changed dramatically when she learns about the true horrors of the war, something that carries over into her characterization in Batman v. Superman. This arc is handled terrifically in the film, yielding some highly effective emotional moments. As for the rest of the film, Patty Jenkins’ direction is fantastic and she uses the WWI setting to great effect, thanks in part to the film’s excellent production design. This also carries over into the film’s incredible action sequences. Yes, some of them do use the slow-motion technique that fellow DCEU director Zack Snyder is well-known for (though I don’t think he’s really used it that much in his DCEU films), but they do elicit some great results.

As is common with any superhero casting in the genre, Gal Gadot’s casting as Wonder Woman has gotten a lot of flak from certain fans, from her previous background in acting (e.g. her supporting role as Gisele in the Fast and Furious films) to, unfortunately, sexist jabs at her weight and physical stature by those who don’t think that she was the right fit for DC’s most famous heroine. Hell, some have even mocked her tenure in the Israeli army when she was younger (Who does that?). However, when I went to a panel that she was at during last year’s Rhode Island Comic Con, I felt that, offscreen, she very much conveyed all the great traits that audiences have loved about the character ever since she was first introduced back in 1941. And this translates exceptionally well to this film; she’s charming, caring, and most of all, a total badass whenever she gets into the action. She is paired well with Chris Pine who, thankfully, never overshadows Wonder Woman in her own film. Instead, Steve Trevor is just a natural sidekick who does share some romantic chemistry with Diana but, at the same time, is not just a simple ‘love interest’. The two of them are backed by a highly entertaining collection of supporting characters via the team that Steve enlists to help them out on the battlefield; Saïd Taghmaoui as a flirtatious spy named Sameer, Ewen Bremmer as Charlie, a sharpshooter who’s already been through the horrors of war, and Eugene Brave Rock as Chief, a smuggler. As for the film’s villains… eh, they’re ok. I mean, they work within the context of the plot but at the end of the day, they’re still kind of the weakest links of the film.

Fear not, DCEU fans, for I will not be making any sort of derogatory statements towards the previous DCEU films in this review of what has been the franchise’s first well-received outing. After all, as I’ve made it clear in the past, I am a fan of both Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman; heck, I even liked the latter BEFORE the Ultimate Edition came out (Suicide Squad? Eh, I feel that I may have been a bit too positive on that one. I’ll know if this is the case when I see it again). I will say, though, that I’m glad to see that the franchise has finally managed to catch a lucky break after a rough 2016, as Wonder Woman is most certainly one of the best installments of the franchise. Gal Gadot absolutely shines in the lead role of Diana and the direction from Patty Jenkins is fantastic. Together, they give us a terrific female lead who’s given an equally terrific character arc in a film full of emotional depth that captures just the right kind of tone to suit this legendary character. It’s a satisfying win for the two, with Gadot very much proving the critics who doubted her in the role wrong and Jenkins having a much-deserved blockbuster hit after she was forced to back out of directing Thor: The Dark World due to differences with Marvel Studios’ [now disbanded] controversial creative committee. And thanks to these two, the DC Extended Universe’s future looks much brighter thanks to a film that, let’s be honest, was too important to fail as the first female-led superhero film of the modern era. 

Rating: 5/5!

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Season 4 'Review'

Ghost Rider, LMDs, and a virtual world come into the equation in this show's greatest season yet.

(WARNING: SPOILERS)