Wonder Woman 1984 Review

Nostalgia is a powerful thing, particularly in the realm of entertainment and especially in Hollywood; why else would we see so many reboots/sequels/revamps/remakes? Nostalgia also plays a big part in "Wonder Woman 1984," in at least two ways: one, it's a sequel to a film based on the long-running comic book character, but more importantly, it's based in the eighties (hence the title). This allows the screenwriters to again tell a "fish out of water" story, as her love interest Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), is "wished" for, and shows up after dying in the first film. (See, there is this magic relic that grants wishes...) "Oooh," "ahhhh," he says, as he gazes at doohickeys like exercise bikes and break dancers, but they used this joke in the last movie, swapping only the decade.

This narrative cliché is attractive here because it saves the movie makers the trouble of having to create their own world to have a character be out of place in. Why bother producing "Wonder Woman 2084," where you'd need to come up with all sorts of new fancy gadgets and advances in tech, when you can just dig out some roller skates and shoulder pads from the attic and call it a day?

It's not the only copout here. There's a scene where the titular heroine (Gal Gadot) and her boyfriend are flying a plane (stolen from the Smithsonian, lucky they keep all their aircrafts topped off with fuel), and she practices her invisibility power. She's only successfully performed the trick once, on a mug (which she promptly lost. It's a good gag.), before making the entire ship invisible. That's nice for the special effects people- just show some shots of a clear sky, toss in some sound effects and bam, an invisible jet.

No, that's not the biggest problem here: again, it's the picture's half-hearted attempt at making Wonder Woman herself a symbol of women's rights" It doesn't work, again. If she is so powerful, like literally a superhero, why does she need to be saved (at least twice) by a man? Can she not make it without a man in her life? That's the story they're selling, and it's just so frustrating.

Why does Trevor-boy need to come to the rescue? When she wished for him back, she inadvertently traded her most prized possession- her powers. Only they fade over time, so the weaker she grows the more "world saving" he does. She finally revokes her wish (i.e. sending him back to his grave) and bam, she's Wonder Woman again. Can a woman not have a family and a career? What the hell kind of message is that??!!

It's equally annoying that the main villain, Barbara, played by Kristen Wiig, is blinded only by her own vanity. Trading her innocence and kindness to become "just like" the whip-lassoing protagonist, she only wants to be "liked" by her coworkers; why are both female stars here bound by stereotypes?

Anyway, there is another baddie, an oil-hungry tycoon called Max Lord, played by Pedro Pascal, who's appetite has room for wishes as well. Only instead of just using that antique stone to make a wish, he becomes the antique stone, granting other people's wishes for whatever he wants in return. Towards the end of runtime, he's broadcasted on every screen in the world, granting wishes like a corrupt televangelist. His transmission is only in English, yet everyone in the world understands him. That's a logical error, one of several, but hey, this is mass-audience entertainment, why bother scrutinizing it?

Because it's infuriating, that's why! Take Wonder Woman's attire; she wears bullet-reflecting wristbands, yet exposes much of her body in a low-cut top and a mini-skirt? Why not just cover her entire body with the stuff? Only she does do that, in a curt climatic confrontation between her and Cheetah (that's Barbara's alter-ego, or so the internet tells me. I don't recall it ever being spoken here). Draped in gold, complete with wings (though she doesn't need them to actually fly) this final battle finds her appropriately "bullet proof." Another problem: this fight is shot at night, no doubt to hide just how clumsy the CGI fur is on Kristen Wiig. Wasn't "Cats" 2019's problem?

I dunno. "Wonder Woman 1984" is serviceable entertainment. Fans will no doubt be streaming it again and again (or, gasp, seeing it in theaters once or twice). But with so many places in the world on lockdown, the superhero movie genre has some new faces, notably competitor Netflix's "Project Power" and "The Old Guard." Not that either of those films are necessarily any better than this latest DC release, but they offer something it can't: the absence of burden to a franchise. They can be a little darker. A little grittier. A little bit different. A little smaller scale. Here, well, we have mega-budget blockbuster playing on someone else's turf.

I'm giving this two stars because that's what I gave the first one. "Is it just as good?" "Is it disappointing?" Those are irrelevant questions when the studio is already planning on making not only a sequel but a spinoff.

Breach Review

"Breach" is a cheapo science-fiction movie, it's as simple as that. It's something that wouldn't look out of place debuting on the SyFy channel, and for most of it's short hour and thirty something minute runtime, I was on board. Not there was anything original to be seen, heard, or even suggested, but as a lazy midday rental, you get what you paid for, and more.

The "more" comes from the involvement of Bruce Willis, who really isn't the main character, playing a drunk janitor named Clay, but he's in most shots, and his trademark smirk and lethargy to the situation puts the film's tongue firmly in cheek. He never goes as far as "winking" to the camera, the way a lot of these disposable monster movies go for (I'm looking at you, the six-something "Sharknado" flicks), but this secondary tone gives the picture something most discount creature features can't seem to achieve: a sense of fun.

He expectedly yells in quips, in between swigs from his flask, and although they are far (and I mean far) from that pithy quality he's famous for, they're not bad. In his character's final shot, he goes full John McClane, complete with frantic head bobbing while talking to himself about the unwinnable position he's in. It's great stuff, if only to remind you of his better works.

Not to say the one-time action star puts his heart into the role, but he seems to be enjoying himself, the same way other expired heavy-hitters like Gary Busey or Nicolas Cage do. Willis is far more restrained (or less interested) than either of those two bonkers actors are famous for, but standing on murky sets, filled with fog, dull colored lights, and a mutilated body covered in blood, his grin brightens the mood.

It's something, at least, it's something! Because "Breach," previously known as "Anti Life" (a name that remains at end of the credits), is otherwise completely average (and frequently below average). It's something the dork at Blockbuster would recommend as an alternative when they've run out of copies of "Alien." Scene for scene, you know what to expect, save for the ending, where either the script ran out of creative juice, or the producers ran out of money, because it's incoherent and vague. 

To describe the plot would be to plagiarize the synopsis of other movies, but my job as film critic demands it. Whoever said reviewing movies isn't hard work has never tried writing.

*cue announcer voice 

"In the future, Earth has become inhabitable. Fleets of spaceships head out to "New Earth," with lucky passengers hopeful to rebuild society. But when a parasite is let loose on the ship, it begins to take control of its human hosts, and it's up to the surviving crew to save the world."

Phew. What an uninspired mouthful! But I promise things are better than that suggests. It's thanks largely to the aforementioned veteran cast member, as well as a cameo by Thomas Jane as the Admiral and an adequate supporting cast (and actual lead actor, Cody Kearsley as Noah) But director John Suits and his team deserve some recognition for their ability to create a faint sense of claustrophobia and atmosphere on the obviously minimal financial allowances. The monster, which only appears in-full towards the end, is laughably cheesy, but Suits works smartly around this by having those "infected" by the creature represented as zombies. Zombies are an economical cinema villain, because anyone with a gift-card to the local costume shop can make one (or many, if you have enough on that gift-card).

This is where things get tricky. "Breach" is clearly bankrupt of its own ideas and on actual budget, and teeters on the edge of being "bad." Why is that, just because it's derivative? Because of its bargain-bin production values? Those are qualities that are equal part important and unimportant to the art of filmmaking. More important questions: was I ever bored? Not really. Did I have a good time? Well I didn't have a "bad" time.

What am I supposed to do? Two stars is the default rating, so let's go with that. 

Disclaimer: this rating depends on how much you appreciate junk, and how much you appreciate seeing a decent performance from Bruce Willis emerging from said junk.

Greenland Review

The presence of Gerard Butler adds nothing but his fanbase to frequently delayed flick "Greenland." He's good in the role of the reluctant hero, as good as he is in any of his roles, but there is little of his trademark "everyman" superhero archetype on display, and his usual audience may feel tricked into a slightly smarter production absent of expected blood squibs and fisticuffs.

I'm actually not sure when he became an action star, with a career stretching back into the 90's, but he is. An economic actor who headlines films with plots lifted straight out of other movies (like last year's "The Fugitive" clone, "Angel Has Fallen"). Today he digs his meaty hands into the pile of disaster pictures, but the results onscreen are far more timely and intimate than he, the film or the audience deserves. At least for a good chunk of its runtime.

OK you know the drill: a man races to save his loved ones from the end of the world, this time a comet named "Clarke" that is about to hit Earth. Only this one is smarter than that basic plot synopsis suggests, forgoing spectacle in favor of family drama. The best parts involve the family when society goes to hell, an all-too familiar world where armed forces fire at civilians, panicked people pillage stores, and hysteria drives people to stealing, kidnapping and killing. It's simultaneously the right movie for 2020 and the wrong one, and it's these scenes that elevate "Greenland" out from the shackles set by its excessive peers.

There are some moments of sappy sentimentalism, as Gerard's character John Garrity's marriage is on the rocks, but this reconciliation does little to destroy the film's intelligent narrative or contemporary momentum.

A few more political wrinkles appear when John is separated from his wife Allison (Morena Baccarin) and diabetic son (Roger Dale Floyd) at a Georgian navel base. Selected families are being flown to a bunker in the namesake island, but why were they chosen, they wonder. So do their neighbors, and the people clamoring at the gates. Allowed entry after given an identification wristband, the parents find themselves the target of the general population; these wristbands are their one chance at survival, people think, and people act without thinking.

The best thing here is how the action is centered around the characters, instead of just on the action. I read the budget is a modest $35 million, a far cry from the usual blockbuster, and I'm sure that was the reason. I don't know about you, but my eyes were thankful for the optical relief, and my brain was just happy to be invited, instead of being told to stay at the door.

It's a shame, though, that we all watched this from our homes. Yes I know there is a pandemic, but the bombastic score and infrequent effects extravaganza demand something other than your crappy TV. Most of us are lucky enough to have something in 1080p, but fewer are set up with a humongous 4K screen or the appropriate sound system. This leaves several long stretches taking place night to appear dim and incomprehensible. Who's at fault? Is it mine for having a poor cinema setup? Or the filmmakers for a cheap home-viewing conversion? This is why we go to the movies, and it's another reminder of how much this year has sucked.

I do wish it leaned further into this human subtext, as the climax begins to ignore general logic and instead hit all the obligatory "disaster movie" beats. Yet I'm not surprised this happens. After all, the internet tells me filming ended last year, so all the similarities are merely coincidental. Let's just hope that 2020 ends the way "Greenland" does, with a light at the end of a tunnel.

The Christmas Setup Review

"The Christmas Setup" features humans in front of a camera reading lines, which by definition, makes it a movie. But only just barely.

Debuting on the television station Lifetime, it is notable only for being their first Christmas movie where the romantic leads are gay. TV has come a long way, but not the films released there. With a pandering narrative, clumsy performances, and low-stakes plot, this is everything we have come to expect from the medium, so grab a bag of popcorn and a blanket, and prepare to fall asleep.

It's the kind of picture where extras in the background pretend to sip from their coffee, only their lips are clearly not touching the cup. The type where you notice that a character is wearing the same pants the next "day." The sort where characters use a twenty dollar bill for a single mug of hot chocolate. Obviously, the budget went to acquiring all those Christmas decorations and fake snow.

Ben Lewis plays Hugo, a big-shot lawyer in NY who heads to his home town for the holidays, only to- gasp, bump into his high school crush. The flannel hunk of man-meat Patrick, played by Lewis' real life husband Blake Lee, and their existing relationship goes a long way in helping elevate the greeting-card material into something that is almost charming. The entire production fails their chemistry, but there's chemistry nonetheless.

Hugo's mother Kate is played by the always wonderful Fran Drescher, who's voice is just as nasally and debatably annoying as everyone remembers, but her professionalism is the rock to the shaky movie-making foundation. She dominates every scene she's in, and she's fortunately got quite a lot of screen time, adding a certain level of goofy class that this is so otherwise lacking in. Problem is, her dopey radiance even distracts from the fact that her fictional son is dating another man in a network first.

So aside from falling head-over-heals in television-PG love, Hugo and friends need to save the town's old train station. On top of that, his brother Aiden, played by Chad Connell, suddenly comes home as well, and begins propositioning Hugo's city friend Madelyn, played by Ellen Wong. And on top of that, he just got a promotion at work requiring him to move to London. Will Hugo and Patrick stay together? Will the historic landmark survive? And how will Madelyn and Aiden, and Hugo and Patrick, make it work long-distance?

There's so much going on! And yet, there isn't a moment that makes you care about any of it. The script defines each character as a caricature and provides zero chance for growth. The actors show up, read they lines, and pretend to look like they're having fun. Once or twice, they look like the honestly are. Other times, you can just picture the director waving their paychecks just off-camera.

Fran Drescher's presence gives this half of its one-star rating. The other half is the channel finally giving the LGBT community the feature-length recognition they deserve. The missing three stars are for being a piece of manufactured rubbish.