MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > OT: Wonder Woman, Paths of Glory -- and...

OT: Wonder Woman, Paths of Glory -- and One Big Scene

posted 7 years ago by ecarle (14979)
29 replies | jump to latest

I will here post a spoiler discussion of one big scene in Wonder Woman, but nothing else of that nature.

Its now a given that we live in the era of the Comic Book Hero movie. It started with Superman in 1978, gathered steam with Batman in 1989...and exploded, says I, in whatever years we got Spiderman, X-Men, and the individual Avengers. Perhaps Ironman in 2008 really got the new era going. We now have two "Universes" of competing franchises: the Marvel Universe(Ironman, Hulk, Spiderman) and the DC Universe(Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman.)

I think that Batman rules over all of them. Something about him NOT having superpowers, something about how he's really an adjunct of James Bond, something about the "cool nighttime universe" of his operations in Gotham City. And something about all those major stars who were willing to play villains(Jack, Arnold, Jim) not to mention a non-superstar who turned in a performance for the ages(Heath.)

But Bats aside, we're awash with superheroes now. Its the Western of our day, and, unlike the Western, unlikely to die out anytime soon.

Just as I went to most Westerns, I go to most comic book hero movies. They have action. They have stars(Brando and Nicholson back in the day; I saw Captain America 2 to see Late Era Robert Redford.) They're all I have available TO see, sometimes.

And I've seen Wonder Woman.

And THIS one is very intriguing....

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Wonder Woman has gotten good reviews, many of which say that it "saves the DC universe franchise after the horrible Batman vs. Superman and Suicide Squad. Those WERE bad movies, though Suicide Squad was saved by sexy Margot Robbie and had Will Smith trying to be a superstar again. (Its Joker, Jared Leto proved the worst ever, one wrong acting decision and "looks" decision after another; it ISN'T a foolproof role after all.)

Wonder Woman also got that Hollywood respect: first movie starring a woman and directed by a woman to open at 100 million domestic.

That's good stuff.

I'm here to say: it IS a good movie. For the first two acts. They are great. Comes the third act, we get that demoralizing realization: My God, these damn movie ALWAYS have to end the same. With an overload of CGI effects and an overload of high falutin' Evil Mastermind who isn't human Overexplaining. I'm here to tell you that Wonder Woman has exactly the same third act finale as Guardians of the Galaxy 2, Suicide Squad, Batman vs Superman, The Incredible Hulk(that would be the Ed Norton one) and the original Ironman(which, I guess, ends up being the only original in the bunch.)

When THAT ending arrived for Wonder Woman, I was a little sad. It hit me: polling must show that international audiences and kids DEMAND this same damn climax, villain reveal and CGI overkill. It must be kept in a drawer somewhere, or in a computer program...

But still: there's some really good parts

MORE

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

The "good parts" stem from various factors:

The opening on "Amazon island," a world populated only by women which gets you to wondering about pro-creation and the "unnecessary aspects" of being a man. When a man finally DOES show up(Chris Pine, quite good)...you're worried for him. He's an alien being. Will he be expunged. These are tough women warriors, and a few of them give off a brawny lesbian vibe(to be expected), but others suggest that they knew some men somewhere, sometime. Not Diana(Wonder Woman), though. Zeus made her out of clay.

The dependence of Wonder Woman on Greek Mythology shifts it over to the "Jason and the Argonauts" school of narrative filmmaking. This is a Greek God tale as well as a comic book universe tale. And that's good, too.

And then there's Wonder Woman herself: Gal Gadot, the most overexposed(in the press) woman of 2017. A Star is Born.

We were given a warm up on Gadot in "Batman versus Superman," which she stole with her beauty and her attitude. Then she did a little spy comedy where she was paired with handsome Jon Hamm(Mad Men's Don Draper) to get us used to her...but in that "normal" story, she was STILL like a superhero(superspy division.)

Gadot is gorgeous. The movies have been finding women like her for years. But she also proves capable of acting comedy and tragedy and finds the various colors that a movie star needs to find to be Not Just Another Pretty Face.

There is some debate on the internet about the extent to which middle-aged film male film critics can be allowed to say that Gal Gadot is beautiful and creates lustful thoughts in them. Well, I dunno...aren't movie stars who are beautiful MEANT to be adored and perhaps lusted over, no matter the age of the viewer? The commix have given us our share of beefcake guys -- Thor, Captain America, Superman. We've been waiting for a cheesecake gal for some time now(ScarJo's Black Widow was a helpful warm-up.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Except that Wonder Woman is THE female superhero. We had the Lynda Carter version on TV in the seventies, (after an aborted version with an actress who was BLONDE), and we've had the comic books for years before and after, and we've had the essential conundrum of the character:

For women, Wonder Woman is a feminist role model. For men, Wonder Woman is a Playboy Playmate fantasy figure who also "plays rough." What's not to like? What's not to end up in dangerous waters over?

Gal Gadot steps up the plate on both counts. I very much liked however, how her character is given great HEART. She travels from her island to engage in World War I(not II, as on the Lynda Carter show and in so many other movies like the first Captain America) because she believes the war is being used by a God of War to destroy earth. And she has great compassion for the victimized and downtrodden collateral damage innocents of war.

Which is leading to the Great Scene, IMHO, with a nod to a great KUBRICK movie, of all things: Paths of Glory.

That one was set in WWI, as well, and took up the issue of men in long trenches having to run out of those trenches into certain death for many of them. The film also took up the heartless arrogance of stay-at-home generals who sent their men into death with no care for them at all.

Those trenches and those generals show up in Wonder Woman and the movie gets some of that "Paths of Glory" moral outrage going. Yells WW at a general: "What are you doing just sitting in this room while your men die? A true general fights alongside his army to the death!" As a warrior woman, WW is disgusted as Patton would be by that shellshocked soldier in the hospital. (But hey, in this movie, didn't that General sitting in his chair in London, fight earlier in his career?)

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Wonder Woman uses 1978's Superman as its playbook. Diana comes to England as Supes came to America, and assumes a disguise of hat with eyeglasses to "nerd herself down." She deflects bullets in an alleyway hold-up(to save her man, Steve , as Clark Kent once saved Lois Lane) , and the producers said that new scene is specifically meant to invoke the old scene. (Well, its not a hold-up this time, its spies aiming guns, but I couldn't come up with another phrase.)

I'm not a big fan of the 1978 Superman. As a first of its kind movie, it didn't really know how to unfold, so we got about an hour of story before Superman really showed up -- and then about one hour of final action crammed into 15 minutes. But I DID like certain scenes in that seminal film, and none better than the moment in Metropolis where Clark Kent tore off his suit, glasses and hat and flew into action as Superman(to save Lois from a helicopter cliffhanger.)

Well, we get that moment in Wonder Woman too -- and its great. Emotional, exhilarating, a certain sense of "this is it!" A female critic in the LA Times has written that this scene made her cry in the WATCHING it, and now makes her cry in the REMEMBERING it. It is called "The No Man's Land Scene." So famous is this scene now that we are getting interviews with the director saying that she was originally told to CUT IT. Yikes.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

The No Man's Land scene takes place in...

No Man's Land.

Diana, wearing heavy coat and hat and eyeglasses(I think, maybe not the whole get-up, I can't remember now) is in the trenches with the Brits and Americans facing a "No Man's Land" of German sniper death stretching for 500 yards ahead of them. Though Generals order men into No Man's Land to die, they don't go ALL the time. Meanwhile, local French villagers have been captured, starved, killed by the Germans and no one can save them because No Man's Land cannot be crossed by enough men alive to make the rescue.)

Which means Wonder Woman(who is never CALLED Wonder Woman in this film, btw) decides to take action. For the captured villagers. For their crying children. For the male soldiers who will die on No Man's Land territory.

Off comes the coat, the hat, the eyeglasses, and there she is: Wonder Woman. Its kind of like a strip tease with a woman doing it...except Diana's compassion is so strong and warrior's fury so evident that we don't think that FIRST. She leaps out of the trenches and runs into No Man's Land with only her shield and sword to protect her and...

Well, it IS a great scene, the best of its kind since Christopher Reeve switched into his Supes garb(without a phone booth) to rescue Margot Kidder and...its more meaningful...because Wonder Woman will face an army to save innocents.

I recommend Wonder Woman for the No Man's Land scene, for that gorgeous new star(she's going places), for Chris Pine's witty heroic take on his "sidekick role" and for pretty much all of the strong and realistic narrative pull of the first two acts.

As for that demoralizingly predictable third act well...at least Gal Gadot's in it. And that makes all the difference.

[–] swanstep (2715) 7 years ago

"Comes the third act, we get that demoralizing realization: My God, these damn movie ALWAYS have to end the same."
Indeed. All the fun and personality in Superhero movies happens near the beginning then they become less and less interesting until we reach the fighting climax which is completely generic and dull. The forthcoming Avengers:Infinity War films fill me with trepidation for this reason: they're the third act of this whole generation of the Marvel Universe (they're rebooting with new Iron Man, Cap, Thor, Hulk, Black Widow after that). The underlying comic/graphic novel *is* just one long fight on ever increasing, 'cosmic' scales.

Anyhow, thanks for the detailed review of WW ecarle. It does seem that DC has finally got itself a good 'un, a real, born-for-the-role star in Gal Gadot. She was easily the best thing in the wretched Batman v. Superman. Female superheroes are tricky to pull off, let alone *the* iconic female superhero: they have to be plausibly kickass and yet still iconically feminine/pretty as well as have solid acting skills and good comic timing specifically (random supermodels aren't going to cut it). Gadot by all accounts has nailed it. And relocating WW's origin to the less-traversed World War One era seems to have worked well (it was the time of women's suffrage movements and first wave feminism after all and the war itself sweeps away lots of old regimes and social structures initiating the modern world with all its distinctive conflicts and problems for better and worse).

"When THAT ending arrived for Wonder Woman, I was a little sad."
I'll be satisfied if it just avoids 'everything is lifted up off the ground by some light in the sky and then dropped'!

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

"Comes the third act, we get that demoralizing realization: My God, these damn movie ALWAYS have to end the same."
Indeed. All the fun and personality in Superhero movies happens near the beginning then they become less and less interesting until we reach the fighting climax which is completely generic and dull.

----

One wonders why this is the case, time after time.

But more disturbing in its sameness to me is that the NATURE of the CGI-crazed climax is pretty much exactly the same, as I can count it, in GOTG2, Wonder Woman, and Suicide Squad(to name three of recent vintage that I can remember) which is essentially that a human being turns out to be merely the "front" for a larger galactic force or God. Same plot gizmo, buried in CGI as the hero/heroes try to fight a force rather than a villain.

I flash back to the climax of Tim Burton's Batman(1989). Three -- just three, ONLY three -- principal characters in a Vertigo bell tower on Hulk Steroids: Hero Batman, Villain Joker, Heroine Vicki Vale. Plus three of the Joker's henchmen. That's it. All character, fighting(especially against one really big henchman) and cliffhanging. With Danny Elfman's mad waltz accompanying the Joker and Vicki(forced) dancing, and Batman fighting. The best of the bunch to me, and downright Spartan compared to how these modern "epics" end.

Oh, well, it turns out that 1989 was a long time ago...

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

The forthcoming Avengers:Infinity War films fill me with trepidation for this reason: they're the third act of this whole generation of the Marvel Universe (they're rebooting with new Iron Man, Cap, Thor, Hulk, Black Widow after that). The underlying comic/graphic novel *is* just one long fight on ever increasing, 'cosmic' scales.

---

I had that feeling in the first of the Avengers films, where they were all together, but diminished in screen time and interest, and the whole thing turned into a long final battle. "Here we go again."

I guess I have to confront myself yet again: they aren't making these for me. Its not that there aren't millions of movie fans of my late middle age; nor do we all need the artistic depth of a well-made film for adults. Mainstream excellence will suffice -- Tim Burton's Batman had it. And if we can get it, good storytelling and a sense of place and character.

But somebody out there -- with undefeatable "worldwide grosses" to prove it -- is settling for the murk and CGI overkill of Supes vs Batman(which made zillions, but coulda/should been a GREAT movie), Suicide Squad and -- making a leap -- all the incoherent Pirates of the Caribbean movies except for the first one.

I realize that some of the Pixar "cartoon films" have had the necessary classic craftsmanship and care -- The Incredibles, Finding Nemo, Inside Out -- but at heart, those are for kids first, and even they can overdo some of the effects.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Anyhow, thanks for the detailed review of WW ecarle.

--

I feel a little sheepish at how limited my summer filmgoing has been thus far. Little attracts me. I'm not indiscriminate about going to comic hero films. In the last few years, I've passed on all the X-Men reboot stuff, the second Avengers movie, any of the Thor movies(the first one bored me), and the bizarre attempt to keep giving us a new actor playing Spiderman every two years , it seems (I exaggerate, but only a little.) I know a new actor played Batman from Keaton to Kilmer to Clooney to Bale, but these Spidermen (boys) keep repeating the same origin stories, it seems. And they keep re-casting Uncle Ben, too.

And hey, with all my regard for Batman in the comic book firmament(especially the two Joker blockbusters with Jack and Heath)...it seems that Ben Affleck as Batman has rather been spread too thin and devalued in the new DC universe reboots. I don't believe him as Bruce Wayne; he's too soon after Bale. (I do like his line in the upcoming Justice League: "My superpower is that I'm rich.")

Anyway, just as I liked The Magnificent Seven and The Professionals as Westerns back in the sixties while skipping the Glenn Ford creakers("Heaven with a Gun"), so am I selective in choosing the comic hero movie to attend today. I picked GOTG2 because I liked the humor, 70's tunes, and "Mag 7" vibe of the first one -- and because they put Kurt Russell in this one.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

And Wonder Woman? Well, the reviews were quite good --particularly against the wretched other recent DC films -- and the woman is alluring, which can still warm the mind's eye of a man enjoying a movie starring a beautiful woman. (I mean, these things are a natural human instinct. Nothing can be done.) Gadot made her mark in Supes vs Batman, and here is her chance to shine.

The movie DOES have a plot, some great set-pieces(like the Amazons fighting German soldiers on their Amazon Island beach, plus the WWI action), and several great settings: that Amazon island(a lot of CGI there, but a lot of natural beauty); early 20th Century London(with big budget cinematography and art direction); and Kubrick's WWI trenches, giving a realistic power to the piece. There's a bit of screwball banter between "Diana Prince"(WW's Clark Kent monicker) and Chris Pine's Steve Trevor(he's different than the other Chris' principally because of almost alien-like intense slitted blue eyes and other exaggerated facial features; he's buff and he's funny.)

I was reminded that Wonder Woman is like Superman in that she has superstrength and the ability to "jump til she's flying" -- and that a mere mortal like Steve Trevor is going to have to contemplate the complications of love/lust with a superstrong woman who is also kind of a God. Literally. The movie makes sure to put some screwball comedy and hard-earned romance into the piece that is well-driven by Gadot's beauty and grounded sense of reality. Steve earns her love with his heroism and backing of her feminism.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

(they're rebooting with new Iron Man, Cap, Thor, Hulk, Black Widow after that).

---

They are, huh? Well, Ironman in all the Avengers spinoffs paid the witty and handsome Robert Downey Jr. so many zillions that he barely does other movies. It may be nice to have him back. Uh oh..his next one is: Dr. Doolittle. D'oh!

----

It does seem that DC has finally got itself a good 'un, a real, born-for-the-role star in Gal Gadot.

---

Imdb in its trivia section lists all sorts of ladies -- many more famous -- considered for the role. And a lot of them would have been fine. But Gadot is new and fresh to the eyes and a different take ON Wonder Woman(her accent sounds French to me, but she's Israeli.) She will surely become a franchise star(RDJ is at the top of the list; that OTHER Chris -- Evans -- rather further down as Captain America), and might just find the roles necessary to make her a garden variety star as well. We shall see.

---

She was easily the best thing in the wretched Batman v. Superman.

---

In some ways, it wasn't fair. We were pretty used to Batman and Superman by now, and here this gorgeous Wonder Woman suddenly shows up and male eyes go right to her, probably some appreciative females, too. But Gadot's charisma and acting chops were well-displayed, too. She was the "fun fighter" of the three leads in B vs S.

---

Female superheroes are tricky to pull off, let alone *the* iconic female superhero: they have to be plausibly kickass and yet still iconically feminine/pretty as well as have solid acting skills and good comic timing specifically (random supermodels aren't going to cut it). Gadot by all accounts has nailed it.

---

Agreed. Its not like a few lovely ladies haven't been suited up for commix action in recent years -- including Best Actresses Jennifer Lawrence and Halle Berry(who did double duty in X-Men AND as Catwoman in a horrible franchise starter that led nowhere); Famke Janssen, and, ScarJo.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

And relocating WW's origin to the less-traversed World War One era seems to have worked well

---

Yes. Its "new terrain" so to speak. The WW TV show and Captain America have given us the Nazi era; this is a bit closer to Victorian.

---

(it was the time of women's suffrage movements and first wave feminism after all

---

The film puckishly presents Diana as so worldly and assured of her worth and power as a woman that she frankly finds male-run England something of a joke that she can't believe. Part of the tension in the film comes from just how far Diana will "play along as a helpless female" until she's had enough and quits with the fakery and kicks ass. Meanwhile, Steve Trevor has to re-think HIS superiority, and yet assert himself as an equal TO Diana. Which is hard, seeing as she's a God.

--

and the war itself sweeps away lots of old regimes and social structures initiating the modern world with all its distinctive conflicts and problems for better and worse).

--

The film picks up on that -- at least until the CGI Ultra-Gods and Greek Gods take the screen.

There is the ever-ironic naming of the War as "the War to End All Wars." Nobody knew it was only World War One at the time.

---

"When THAT ending arrived for Wonder Woman, I was a little sad."
I'll be satisfied if it just avoids 'everything is lifted up off the ground by some light in the sky and then dropped'!

---

Y'know, I honestly can't remember in all that light and noise. Same goes for GOTG2. Honestly, the endings are practically identical.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

My theatrical movie going is, of necessity (the product, not my health or age) , diminishing these days. Little attracts me this summer -- I'll pass on Tranformers and Planet of the Apes. I'm laying my bets on two old-fashioned action films -- Baby Driver(from Edgar Wright, with Handsome Jon Hamm along as a bearded gangsta bad guy) and Atomic Blonde(Charlize Thereon -- another comixx veteran --as Ms. John Wick.) I'll show for those and then wait for the fall movies. There should be a surprise in there. And I have no idea what my favorite movie of 2017 will be. Right now, it could be 2/3 of Wonder Woman, which was(as one critic called it) "stirring and enthralling"..for awhile, at least.

In the meantime, the best movie I've seen at the theater so far this year was...The Godfather. Oh, well, I've got decades of great movies behind me to keep looking at as new generations take the field at the multiplex.

PS. Kudos to Robin Wright...playing tough and macho and touchingly middle-aged -- as Wonder Woman's warrior drill sergeant/battle trainer on Amazon Island. (Also, her aunt; Connie Nielsen is mom; Zeus is dad.) Wright surprised in that role.

[–] swanstep (2715) 7 years ago

Little attracts me this summer -- I'll pass on Transformers and Planet of the Apes. I'm laying my bets on two old-fashioned action films -- Baby Driver(from Edgar Wright, with Handsome Jon Hamm along as a bearded gangsta bad guy) and Atomic Blonde(Charlize Thereon -- another comixx veteran --as Ms. John Wick.)

Early word on Baby Driver is that it's strong. And, well, Charlize is pretty uniquely plausible as an unstoppable badass female isn't she? Could/should be fun.

I guess there's a Kingsmen 2 coming in August to complete a trllogy of high-energy, action-black-comedies.

Other notables: Chris Nolan's Dunkirk (a military disaster movie? it looks ultra-spectacular from its trailer), Sofia Coppola's remake of The Beguiled (I'm skeptical about this one since I rate the original highly and I'm not much of a Sofia C. fan - I've only really liked Marie Antoinette from her so far).

But, yeah, the summer months are pretty slim pickings... it's very irritating since often that there's this huge queue of good films from Cannes and even Sundance earlier that get held over the summer and even until the end of the year, at which point there's suddenly far too much to see. E.g., Last year ultimately turned out to be a very strong year for film and yet almost all of that strength was concentrated into the last two months! I ended up counting 15-20 very good to excellent films and only two of them (Zootopia, Love and Friendship) were released before the end of the year rush.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Early word on Baby Driver is that it's strong.

---

It looks hip and funny. Kevin Spacey has sort of outworn his welcome in some ways(and he doesn't LOOK too good), and yet he seems rejuvenated getting to play a ruthless gangster type. Jon Hamm now brings to any movie his illustrious past(as, alas, did James Gandolfini for a few years there.) The "Mike Myers Halloween Mask" gag is funny and line-reading funny, too. (Jamie Foxx is hip, too.)

---

And, well, Charlize is pretty uniquely plausible as an unstoppable badass female isn't she?

---

Yep. Oftimes critics complain that 90-pound "girls" are hired to kick ass. Charlize is big and strapping and statuesque. Oscar winner, too.

---

.

I guess there's a Kingsmen 2 coming in August to complete a trllogy of high-energy, action-black-comedies.

--

August? I thought October. But Baby Driver was set for August and now its late June. (Good notices.)

I loved the first Kingsmen and yeah, we're talking three good ol' actioners free of all that mythic folderol and CGI overkill of the commix films.

I note in the Kingsman II trailer the quickest of glances at an array of Oscar winners: Julianne Moore, Halle Berry, and Jeff Bridges(shorn of all facial hair and looking a bit peaked). The point: Oscar winners sure are a dime a dozen when you need to cast a bunch of 'em. Channing Tatum's in this one too(the gimmick is that the Kingsmen have an All-American branch of cowboys called the Statesmen -- Tatum and Bridges, no doubt.) Speaking of Channing Tatum? Is he still a star? He was, for awhile....

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Other notables: Chris Nolan's Dunkirk (a military disaster movie? it looks ultra-spectacular from its trailer),

---

I had to look up the Dunkirk story to get a sense of its historical significance. It is significant. This could be the "thoughtful epic" of the summer.

I wonder how long Chris Nolan will have to make films before his Dark Knight movies are detached from his persona?

---

Sofia Coppola's remake of The Beguiled (I'm skeptical about this one since I rate the original highly and I'm not much of a Sofia C. fan - I've only really liked Marie Antoinette from her so far).

---

Back in a different day of seeing more indiefilms, I certainly liked "Lost in Translation" for Murrays performance and the weirdness of that luxury hotel "floating" in the night sky of Tokyo. That was hers, right? I also recall seeing The Virgin Suicides. It was OK , is all I can remember.

Funny: Don Siegel and Clint Eastwood made The Beguiled in the same year they made THEIR blockbuster(their "Psycho" if you will): Dirty Harry. Quite a team on quite a roll. Plus Don did a brief acting gig in Eastwood's directorial debut -- Play Misty for Me -- the SAME YEAR. (1971.) Boy, did Clint pepper us with product in those days. He wanted to be known for everything he could -- superstarring(Harry), directing(Misty), even art filming(The Beguiled.)

I'm afraid Colin Farrell has a lot to live up to.

I recall the original Beguiled as intriguing, sexy...and a bit too dull for my action fan tastes. My problem....

[–] swanstep (2715) 7 years ago

Funny: Don Siegel and Clint Eastwood made The Beguiled in the same year they made THEIR blockbuster(their "Psycho" if you will): Dirty Harry. Quite a team on quite a roll. Plus Don did a brief acting gig in Eastwood's directorial debut -- Play Misty for Me -- the SAME YEAR. (1971.) Boy, did Clint pepper us with product in those days. He wanted to be known for everything he could -- superstarring(Harry), directing(Misty), even art filming(The Beguiled.)

Yes, all very impressive from Siegel and Eastwood in those years (and things like Charley Varrick and Outlaw Josey Wales are just around the corner really).

This is reminding me of a thought I've been having since this thread begun: if 'superhero films' are the current master-genre comparable to Westerns or Gangster pictures or Noirs or Cop movies or Disaster movies or what we might call ''80s action extravaganzas' at their respective zeniths... well I think you'd have to say that superhero pictures have so far underwhelmed. No superhero picture yet has been *completely* satisfying (even The Dark Knight has lots of third act problems, even if they're not quite the generic third act problems that we've mostly been complaining about in this thread). Thus no superhero film is as good overall as Dirty Harry is, or Jaws is, or Die Hard is, or Star Wars is, or Sweet Smell of Success is, or Double Indemnity is, or Shane is, or the Wild Bunch is, or Rififi is or Goodfellas or The Godfather is or Alien/Aliens are... Marvel in particular has mastered making consistently good and watchable superhero films but greatness doesn't seem to be in the cards. If I'm right about this then it *is* a little depressing that so much energy and budget is now devoted to a genre of film whose ceiling is low (presumably in part because of the anti-dramatic impetus of all the serialization and universe-build-out and effective immortality of most characters).

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Yes, all very impressive from Siegel and Eastwood in those years (and things like Charley Varrick and Outlaw Josey Wales are just around the corner really).

---

The Siegel/Eastwood duo is one of those interesting Hollywood things:

From 1968 through 1971, Siegel directed Clint four times: Coogan's Bluff, Two Mules for Sister Sara, The Beguiled...and then, the Big One: Dirty Harry.

But evidently Dirty Harry drove a split between the two men. Eastwood, now a superstar, wanted to go his own way(often directing himself). Siegel -- perhaps cast off by Clint -- was suddenly in demand by just about every male star in Hollywood. He would direct, in succession, Walter Matthau, Michael Caine, John Wayne, Charles Bronson, and Burt Reynolds.

And, one more time in there, Don Siegel would direct Clint one more time: Escape from Alcatraz(1979.)

Word is, a studio boss pushed for the re-teaming, and both Siegel and Clint fought it for awhile. But they did it -- the movie was well reviewed for its "crisp and efficient script and direction" , but frankly, it was fairly dull stuff IMHO.

Siegel's final film went badly: "Jinxed" with Bette Midler. She hated Siegel. He hated her. Trivia: Sam Peckinpah directed some second-unit(he was unhireable at the time, drugs/drink), and much of "Jinxed" takes place in Charley Varrick country -- Reno -- with some of the same cast.

BEFORE Don Siegel hooked up with Clint, he'd already directed movie tough guys Steve McQueen, James Coburn, Lee Marvin , Richard Widmark.. Elvis Presley. Don Siegel was "one stop shopping" for the male loner. Some great genre work in there. And John Wayne's final film, the western "The Shootist."

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

This is reminding me of a thought I've been having since this thread begun: if 'superhero films' are the current master-genre comparable to Westerns or Gangster pictures or Noirs or Cop movies or Disaster movies or what we might call ''80s action extravaganzas' at their respective zeniths... well I think you'd have to say that superhero pictures have so far underwhelmed.

---
Yes, likely so. The makers of the Superhero films have tried to tie them to the Western as an "always-there genre," but there are too many Western classics for the connection to be made, really.

---

No superhero picture yet has been *completely* satisfying (even The Dark Knight has lots of third act problems, even if they're not quite the generic third act problems that we've mostly been complaining about in this thread).

---

They are "weird" third act problems. I'm not entirely sure that Heath Ledger had REALLY completed the film before his death, as Warners claimed. He just sort of disappears from the movie and seems sketchy in his final scene. Perhaps a scene was left unfilmed; perhaps he never got to do all the looping and over-dubbing a star does. Anyway, he's gone too soon and the Two-Face wrap-up is contrived and uninvolving even with a family's life at stake.

---

Thus no superhero film is as good overall as Dirty Harry is, or Jaws is, or Die Hard is, or Star Wars is, or Sweet Smell of Success is, or Double Indemnity is, or Shane is, or the Wild Bunch is, or Rififi is or Goodfellas or The Godfather is or Alien/Aliens are...

---

Nope. But most of those were conceived as "one-time only stories" with the proverbial beginning, middle, and great ending. Alas, most of them ended up with sequels, some good(Godfather II, Aliens), some not, but the original films could never be disparaged for their classic quality.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Somewhere in there, our superhero films became both "endless"(just new episodes in a long-running soap opera) AND rebooted(it feels like we get a new verision of the SAME Spiderman story every two years.)

The films are, in the most depressing sense of the word, "product."

And yes, I go to some of them. For particular reasons. Batman has always gotten my interest -- with the exception of Joel Schumacher's two horrors of the 90s, which I nonethess saw. I'm reminded that "GOTG2" opens with -- and later depends upon -- a sweetly cheesy one-hit wonder pop song of my youth call "Brandy," and I kind of liked that about GOTG2. Its LIKE Brandy -- 70s kitsch that goes down easy and fun.

I'm intrigued that much as it took a full 11 years to get a Batman made after Superman, its taken decades to get the almost-equally iconic Wonder Woman on the screen. I wonder why? Female issues? (Can't earn the dough? Wrong.) Too riskily like soft-core exploitation? In any event, I wanted to see what they did with her. Its pretty good what they did with her.

In any event, I know the studios don't make these for my age bracket(or do they? My generation grew up on the comics in question)...but I still choose to see some of them.

Which begs yet again the question: is there a classic in the bunch.

I have one vote...though it may not meet with much approval.

NEXT.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Batman. (1989.)

Here's why.

Superman had set the stage in '78, but things were wrong with it. Way too long on the origin story. Way too silly and compressed in the climax, with rather cheesy special effects. Gene Hackman and especially Ned Beatty too goofy as Lex Luthor and his sidekick(and Hackman refusing to go bald as Luthor til the tip end.) Marlon Brando quite good at the beginning...but really just stopping by for a paycheck.

Much of this was solved with Batman. Origin material was dumped at the start(we meet Batman in action AS Batman in the first sequence) and pushed to the middle. The prestige superstar didn't just "drop in for the paycheck." He took over the movie and infused it with his Oscar-winning technique and his fearless movie star hammery. The finale in the bell tower mixed Vertigo (bell tower) and North by Northwest (hero and heroine dangling; villain stomping on hero's hand.)

And the plot incoherence of the film seemed at once avant garde AND adult(the Joker's killing people with smile-inducing cosmetics.."just because.")

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

With Tim Burton chosen on the artistic/eccentric strengths of Frankenweenie, Pee Wee's Big Adventure, and especially Beetlejuice, he was able to imprint HIS style on Batman and give it a point of view, for better or worse. (Better IMHO, he was "new.")

And, as Francis Coppola cast pals James Caan and Robert Duvall as Sonny and Tom in The Godfather, Burton made the call to cast Michael "Beetlejuice Keaton in HIS blockbuster and...I think Keaton's easily the best Batman we ever got. (I mean, he almost won an Oscar as Birdman.)

Is that enough to put the first "Batman" at Godfather level? No. But I'd say its in spitting distance of "Jaws" level: the most successful film of all time(for ahwhile), when that still mattered(now that happens every year it seems) and "quality entertainment" with one star(Keaton) and one superstar(Nicholson) giving it there all. And all that Hitchcock Goth at the end. And Danny Elfman's Herrmanesque score(remember, Elfman re-orchestrated Herrmann's Psycho score for Van Sant.)

Well, that's my two cents. And while "The Dark Knight" is more "serious" than "Batman" and has a great Joker too -- a lot of it is fairly banal. Aaron Eckhardt as Two-Face didn't get much to do and was fairly boring as the DA, and Maggie Gyllenhaal was egregiously miscast.

I go with "Batman" and "The Dark Knight" as the two best comic films thus far(with the best villains -- the Same Guy) and I actually think that Burton's cartoonish but adult Batman is the better of the two.

(If I was over at one of those Batman boards, I'd be flamed 16 ways to sundown by now.)

[–] swanstep (2715) 7 years ago

[quote] Somewhere in there, our superhero films became both "endless"(just new episodes in a long-running soap opera) [quote]
Indeed. And although serialization was part of movies from the beginning, an at-most once-per-year serial isn't enough to get you the real novelistic depth and continuity. Film can't *really* compete with TV for serialization and extended story-telling, so this doesn't seem to me to be a very fruitful angle for film to pursue.
[quote] AND rebooted(it feels like we get a new verision of the SAME Spiderman story every two years.) [quote]
Even if a franchise character is successfully cast etc. they still start to age out of the character after only 3 or 4 movie installments, hence reboots are always in order even in the best cases let alone supposed misfires like the last iteration of Spiderman (which I skipped entirely).

Note that the latest, ultra-young Spidey w/ super-hot Aunt Mae thanks to ageless Marisa Tomei flirting w/ Tony Stark seems relatively promising. And Michael Keaton gets to be a Birdman-villain! which is kind of art imitating art imitating art. Kewl.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Somewhere in there, our superhero films became both "endless"(just new episodes in a long-running soap opera) [quote]
Indeed. And although serialization was part of movies from the beginning, an at-most once-per-year serial isn't enough to get you the real novelistic depth and continuity.

---

No. And generally , these franchises have to space films two to three years. (Except with The Hunger Games style of the entire story in fragments over three years.)

---

Film can't *really* compete with TV for serialization and extended story-telling, so this doesn't seem to me to be a very fruitful angle for film to pursue.

---

Probably not. I was thinking the other day , given these threads that while the modern superhero movies haven't yielded much greatness, and while even MY personal favorite movies of the 2000s and 2010s are not particularly "great" films either (Love Actually, The Departed, The Wolf of Wall Street, The Hateful Eight), in those two decades, a serialized series was, in each of those decades,"great enough to meet the grade."

The 2000's: The Sopranos (ran 1999 to 2007.)
The 2010s: Mad Men (ran 2007 to 2015.)

To me, those series are two very long movies (89 hours in Sopranos case) which nonetheless...given how the years fly...seem quite compact and cohesive in the memory. (I"m rewatching The Sopranos right now, and with no two-year wait between seasons, and X number of key killings along the way as "highpoints", it feels in memory like a three-hour movie.) And both series are great in my "mainstream" way: great scripts and great acting.

And those are MY two favorite series. Others might substitute in Breaking Bad and Game of Thrones as the great ones; maybe even The Walking Dead.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Even if a franchise character is successfully cast etc. they still start to age out of the character after only 3 or 4 movie installments,

---

Particularly, I suppose, in the case of Spiderman, where the lead is meant to be a teenager heading into college years.

Still, it struck me as way too soon to start over with the entire origin story.

James Bond needed Timothy Dalton when Roger Moore aged out of the role, but it seems our Batmans were just 'substitutions" along the way:

Michael Keaton(two), Val Kilmer(one), George Clooney(one)...Christian Bale(three)...and now Ben Affleck (feels like 40, the way he keeps doing cameos in Suicide Squad and the like.)

Of that group, Keaton struck me as the one who LOOKED most like a bat(those V-arching eyebrows, his slim body and head) and he captured a great range of tones -- distracted, befuddled, brooding, funny and raging ("C'MON! You wannna play rough? Let's play rough!)

A brief detour to George Clooney, the worst Batman to date in the worst Batman movie to date (Batman and Robin -- and isn't there a clue that the worst Batman movies had Robin?)

I like Clooney OK as an actor, but he's a rather insufferable interview subject and its like his last five movies have flopped and no new ones are listed at imdb.

But...he just made $300 million ($140 million to him) on the sale of a tequila company he opened "on a lark."

There's just no percentage in wishing failure on a modern movie star. Clooney's movies have bombed, but as a "personality," he's married an international superlawyer, sired children at a late age, and made zillions off a GD TEQUILIA FRANCHISE.

I give up, George...Somebody up there likes you...

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

even in the best cases let alone supposed misfires like the last iteration of Spiderman (which I skipped entirely).

---

Yeah. With all of these comic book franchises, it seems like x number of them go too far and run out of steam. I know we've got a new Thor coming soon, but those never seem to earn as high as the others. And The Hulk rarely fares as standalone anymore.

Which reminds me -- Ang Lee's original "Hulk"(with Eric Bana in the role and a crazed Nick Nolte as his father) was by far the most "art film version" of a comic book movie we've gotten. That thing was STRANGE. Though Nolte at the end turned into one of those "galactic beings fronted by a person" that are rife in this summers climaxes.

And the original Spiderman of 2002 probably set the stage for the Marvel universe more than Ironman in 2008. Sam Raimi made his name with Spiderman and that franchise told us: you don't have to spend your budget/profits on a superstar villain. Out go Brando, Nicholson, Carrey, Arnold. In come Willem Dafoe and Alfred Molina -- the latter a great CGI effect as "Doctor Octopus"(probably my favorite villain in these films AFTER the Joker.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Note that the latest, ultra-young Spidey w/ super-hot Aunt Mae thanks to ageless Marisa Tomei

---

THAT;s who Tomei is playing? Look, Ms. Tomei is now my decades-long crush who deserved that My Cousin Vinny Oscar, acts quite well and -- on at least two occasions -- ("The Wrestler" and "Before the Devil Knows Your Dead," Lumet's last film) fearlessly enacted sexual characters,sometimes in the nude, off the charts.

And she's Aunt Mae?

---

flirting w/ Tony Stark seems relatively promising.

---

Well, OK. I realize that Tomei is old enough to be Aunt Mae, but put her on screen with RDJ and...well, whaddya know, I'm probably going to show up for this Spiderman.

---
And Michael Keaton gets to be a Birdman-villain! which is kind of art imitating art imitating art. Kewl.

---

Now, I'm definitely there. I guess its like Kurt Russell being in GOTG2 or Robert Redford in Captain America 2. I'm still rather "star driven" in my choice of films to see. The right stars still make a difference with me.

[–] swanstep (2715) 7 years ago

Here are the Spidey/Tony Stark/'unusually attractive' Aunt May scenes from Civil War last year:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OnOJSNktOs

I didn't think that highly of Civil War but the reintroduction of Spidey in the context of the 'Marvel Cinematic Universe' (I think Sony has basically given up trying to make Spidey movies themselves and have settled for just providing some of the financing for and getting a profit share off of Marvel's own productions) was winningly handled.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

But, yeah, the summer months are pretty slim pickings... it's very irritating since often that there's this huge queue of good films from Cannes and even Sundance earlier that get held over the summer and even until the end of the year, at which point there's suddenly far too much to see.

---

Yes, but at least with the Oscars moved up to February from April/March, the fall gets a fair amount of Oscar bait. I'll be interested to see in what's coming.

Perhaps I have "outgrown" summer movies, but I'll still show up for something special in the usual genres. GOTG2 and Wonder Woman fit that bill so far, and I was intrigued to see another Alien. I'll settle for action through the rest of the summer, and wait for a fall/winter surprise.

Funny: I saw a trailer for "Daddy's Home 2" and it looks risible except for one thing: tough guy Mark Wahlberg and preppie prig Will Ferrell are waiting at the airport for THEIR fathers and we get...an alarmingly gray and wrinkled Mel Gibson as Wahlberg's, and a simpering, kissy-faced John Lithgow as Ferrell's. The key is Gibson -- still making a slow recovery from loss of superstardom(that's never coming back) but, honestly, blowing even the macho Wahlberg off the screen with his "danger." I never noticed how harsh Gibson's voice was before, its MEAN.

---

E.g., Last year ultimately turned out to be a very strong year for film and yet almost all of that strength was concentrated into the last two months! I ended up counting 15-20 very good to excellent films and only two of them (Zootopia, Love and Friendship) were released before the end of the year rush.

---

I think it will be ever thus, now. The winter and spring are given over to "minor films" (comedies, mid-budget action) as are September and part of October. Then, October-December...Oscar bait/interesting movie overload.