That whole element completely fell apart for me.

Some of it was a little too on the nose as well and took me out for a second. "No Man's Land", and the actor complaining he doesn't get cast because he's the wrong color, etc.

If it's the actor I'm thinking of, he had a small but amazing part in Three Kings, which is one of all-time favorite movies.

Finally saw WW. Pretty much agree with you. Unless the reviews indicate that it's something special, I don't care about these movies any more. I've given up on keeping up with Marvel.

Script makes sense.
Characters have personalities, goals, chemistry, and are consistent.
Phenomenal pacing.
Sparse, but meaningful action sequences.
Good mix of humor and seriousness.

I agree w/ you on all points.

Music isn't memorable but it works ok.

There was music? :) Okay, I did notice it once, but that's because it was distracting/too much, but only for a moment. The musical score worked well.

There are setups and payoffs.
No stupid tie ins / foreshadowing with other movies that don't exist yet.

There was that small tie-back to Batman vs Superman (maybe you forgot it -- it was pretty forgettable, especially when viewed in perspective to the rest of the movie). It was completely acceptable IMHO. It could be seen as a Justice League setup/hint/tease, but that's stretching it a bit; BM vs SM had way more of that than WW did.

Mostly... there's some stuff at the end that I found questionable, but I won't get into it here for the sake of avoiding spoilers.

"It has hydrogen in it, that makes it flammable!"

………

Yes, because water, made from oxygen and hydrogen, both of which are super flammable, is itself flammable. Not. :-/

Just because hydrogen exists in the molecule says nothing of its flammability. Chemistry fail.

Hah, yeah, but there was a lot more important stuff going on in that last bit didn't really make sense to me. For instance, she starts the movie monologuing about how she stepped away from mankind because of how we are, but the flashback ends on a high note, with her deciding to fight for us despite our shortcomings. Unless the monologue was mentioning the very brief time she took between killing the German baddie and facing Ares, it feels disconnected.

Headcanon-wise, sure, there was WWII among others which were obviously not influenced by Ares, but she doesn't even mention it in the monologue, so it still feels disjointed.

The part I was referring to was Ares' whole motivation regarding Diana herself. He says something about wanting to crush her when he first saw her, but didn't for some reason, then when he saw what she was capable of, he decided he could use her to do things he couldn't do himself, but then he's clearly more powerful than her (at least in terms of the havoc he could wreck against humans), so what could he possibly need her for?

That whole element completely fell apart for me.

What I took from it was that he was the classic villain. It's not that he couldn't destroy humanity, it was that he wanted more than anything to prove to his dad/family (and thus Diana) that Zeus was stupid for creating humanity. By getting Diana to switch to his side it validated himself. Which is why Ares never killed any humans, he just gave them the weapons to do it themselves, thus he was trying to prove that Humanity was destructive and should be destroyed.

And technically I think Ares was more powerful, but it was Ares' undoing that he tried to use destructive power and Diana used it against him (the lightning).

There were many other plot points that bugged me more than that, like blowing up the plane...

I could be mistaken, but what threw me off about Ares was that he specifically said "I couldn't do it myself" or "I couldn't do it without you" or something to that effect. It's totally possible that he was not telling the truth in that moment, but it jumped out at me because to say to someone "I need you to do what I can't do" and then follow that by saying "I'm going to crush you" just doesn't make sense. If he was lying, it wasn't a convincing lie. And if we was telling the truth... well as I said, that just wouldn't make sense.

But it is totally possible that I misheard, or misunderstood one of the lines. I want to go see the movie again, so I'll pay close attention and see if I just missed something.

Mostly... there's some stuff at the end that I found questionable, but I won't get into it here for the sake of avoiding spoilers.

"It has hydrogen in it, that makes it flammable!"

………

Yes, because water, made from oxygen and hydrogen, both of which are super flammable, is itself flammable. Not. :-/

Just because hydrogen exists in the molecule says nothing of its flammability. Chemistry fail.

Hah, yeah, but there was a lot more important stuff going on in that last bit didn't really make sense to me. For instance, she starts the movie monologuing about how she stepped away from mankind because of how we are, but the flashback ends on a high note, with her deciding to fight for us despite our shortcomings. Unless the monologue was mentioning the very brief time she took between killing the German baddie and facing Ares, it feels disconnected.

Headcanon-wise, sure, there was WWII among others which were obviously not influenced by Ares, but she doesn't even mention it in the monologue, so it still feels disjointed.

The part I was referring to was Ares' whole motivation regarding Diana herself. He says something about wanting to crush her when he first saw her, but didn't for some reason, then when he saw what she was capable of, he decided he could use her to do things he couldn't do himself, but then he's clearly more powerful than her (at least in terms of the havoc he could wreck against humans), so what could he possibly need her for?

That whole element completely fell apart for me.

What I took from it was that he was the classic villain. It's not that he couldn't destroy humanity, it was that he wanted more than anything to prove to his dad/family (and thus Diana) that Zeus was stupid for creating humanity. By getting Diana to switch to his side it validated himself. Which is why Ares never killed any humans, he just gave them the weapons to do it themselves, thus he was trying to prove that Humanity was destructive and should be destroyed.

And technically I think Ares was more powerful, but it was Ares' undoing that he tried to use destructive power and Diana used it against him (the lightning).

There were many other plot points that bugged me more than that, like blowing up the plane...

That whole element completely fell apart for me.

Some of it was a little too on the nose as well and took me out for a second. "No Man's Land", and the actor complaining he doesn't get cast because he's the wrong color, etc.

Mostly... there's some stuff at the end that I found questionable, but I won't get into it here for the sake of avoiding spoilers.

"It has hydrogen in it, that makes it flammable!"

………

Yes, because water, made from oxygen and hydrogen, both of which are super flammable, is itself flammable. Not. :-/

Just because hydrogen exists in the molecule says nothing of its flammability. Chemistry fail.

Hah, yeah, but there was a lot more important stuff going on in that last bit didn't really make sense to me. For instance, she starts the movie monologuing about how she stepped away from mankind because of how we are, but the flashback ends on a high note, with her deciding to fight for us despite our shortcomings. Unless the monologue was mentioning the very brief time she took between killing the German baddie and facing Ares, it feels disconnected.

Headcanon-wise, sure, there was WWII among others which were obviously not influenced by Ares, but she doesn't even mention it in the monologue, so it still feels disjointed.

The part I was referring to was Ares' whole motivation regarding Diana herself. He says something about wanting to crush her when he first saw her, but didn't for some reason, then when he saw what she was capable of, he decided he could use her to do things he couldn't do himself, but then he's clearly more powerful than her (at least in terms of the havoc he could wreck against humans), so what could he possibly need her for?

That whole element completely fell apart for me.

Mostly... there's some stuff at the end that I found questionable, but I won't get into it here for the sake of avoiding spoilers.

"It has hydrogen in it, that makes it flammable!"

………

Yes, because water, made from oxygen and hydrogen, both of which are super flammable, is itself flammable. Not. :-/

Just because hydrogen exists in the molecule says nothing of its flammability. Chemistry fail.

Hah, yeah, but there was a lot more important stuff going on in that last bit didn't really make sense to me. For instance, she starts the movie monologuing about how she stepped away from mankind because of how we are, but the flashback ends on a high note, with her deciding to fight for us despite our shortcomings. Unless the monologue was mentioning the very brief time she took between killing the German baddie and facing Ares, it feels disconnected.

Headcanon-wise, sure, there was WWII among others which were obviously not influenced by Ares, but she doesn't even mention it in the monologue, so it still feels disjointed.

Mostly... there's some stuff at the end that I found questionable, but I won't get into it here for the sake of avoiding spoilers.

"It has hydrogen in it, that makes it flammable!"

………

Yes, because water, made from oxygen and hydrogen, both of which are super flammable, is itself flammable. Not. :-/

Just because hydrogen exists in the molecule says nothing of its flammability. Chemistry fail.

Script makes sense.

Mostly... there's some stuff at the end that I found questionable, but I won't get into it here for the sake of avoiding spoilers.

Characters have personalities, goals, chemistry, and are consistent.

Agreed, although I personally see that stuff (along with the script making sense) as a bit of a low bar. Still, it is a bar many movies miss, so it deserves mention.

Phenomenal pacing.

Yep.

Sparse, but meaningful action sequences.

Agreed, plus they did a good job of using action sequences to communicate character development (not in every case, but most of the time). I always appreciate that sort of storytelling; when the action is a gateway to some sort of internal growth, struggle, or discovery.

Good mix of humor and seriousness.

Agreed, and on a related note I very much appreciated how earnest and heartfelt the movie is. Wonder Woman as a character wears her heart on her sleeve, and the entire movie carries that same philosophy.

Music isn't memorable but it works ok.
There are setups and payoffs.
No stupid tie ins / foreshadowing with other movies that don't exist yet.

Agreed on all points.

This is what happens when people know what they are doing. Marvel can finally start learning from DC.

Yes, this is a great movie, but I still think Marvel has at least matched it several times over. The first Avengers movie is phenomenal, as are Winter Soldier and Civil War. A lot of people like to dismiss the Marvel movies as "formulaic", and that is somewhat justifiable, but when you consider how effective that formula is, I can't blame Marvel for maintaining a consistent tone and style throughout most of their movie universe. And that still doesn't take into consideration how well made most Marvel movies are. Even the mediocre ones are at least entertaining... not something that can be said about any of DC's recent films, Wonder Woman excluded.

Thumbs up.

+1

Now they are just doing movies. The movies are great. Well directed, technically fantastic, surprisingly well acted, great pacing, good music. Fantastic films by the books. But, they're ​soulless.

Script makes sense.
Characters have personalities, goals, chemistry, and are consistent.
Phenomenal pacing.
Sparse, but meaningful action sequences.
Good mix of humor and seriousness.
Music isn't memorable but it works ok.
There are setups and payoffs.
No stupid tie ins / foreshadowing with other movies that don't exist yet.

Going back as far as I can remember, I pretty much have only liked and been interested in Batman and Wonder Woman (comics or action figures when little). Geoff Johns gave me a love for the Flash and Green Lantern around 2008 or so. For the past two years, I've just been hoping that they could get this Wonder Woman movie right. Just this one. If all the other ones suck, whatever. This post of yours (not to mention all the reviews) makes me very happy.

This is what happens when people know what they are doing. Marvel can finally start learning from DC.

Wat. Man of Steel sucked. Batman vs. Superman was three hours of my life I'll never get back (though Wonder Woman was by far the best part of it, and Ben Affleck actually was one of the best things in that movie considering what he had to work with). I frankly have no desire to see any of DC's upcoming movies EXCEPT for Wonder Woman, and I don't feel that Wonder Woman is going to make me magically want to give a damn about Justice League or anything else.

Now, I get what you're saying as far as how some of Marvel's more recent movies have been cookie-cutter and relatively uninspired, but don't pretend like they have anything to learn from DC at this point.

Also, did you see Guardians 2 yet? The first 30-40 minutes of that movie had me shaking my head and wondering if Marvel had just lost its ability to do the thing well, but then the rest/majority of the movie turns into a very character driven and well done movie. I thought it was fantastic. Marvel's still got it, and Guardians 2 didn't tie into anything else. Also, Ant-Man was a really fun time and pretty well done, too.

I guess taken as a whole, if I go just based on what you wrote about Wonder Woman, I'd throw the following into that list (give or take pacing, because styling can make the pacing different but still make it work quite well for a particular movie):

Iron Man
Avengers
Captain America: Civil War
Guardians of the Galaxy
Guardians of the Galaxy 2

I could technically throw Civil War (or even Ant-Man or Captain America 1) into there, and I love the hell out of that movie, but it has so many problems as far as plot is concerned and lack of depth or consequence. So I obviously won't. Either way, that list alone tells me that DC either is starting to learn, or it's a blessing that Zack Snyder was relatively nowhere near Wonder Woman and that they put someone who gets it in charge. For all we know, DC's remaining movies are gonna be trash.

As an aside, I'm really excited for Spider-Man now that Marvel's in charge. I haven't enjoyed any of it since Spider-Man 2 back in the day.

You make a lot of strong points here, but I'm concerned about ant-man "being fun." I saw this one promotional clip of it and I just wrote the whole thing off:

I guess my point is, it's hard to look back at a golden age of Marvel movies and say, this is when they were good. They've been pretty hit and miss their entire run IMHO. Same with DC.

Ahem...excuse me? Blade*! Ghost Rider*! Daredevil and Elektra! Howard the Duck!!!

I believe you stand corrected.

*I actually like these movies...they are fun.