Director Report Card: James Wan (2023)

11. Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom

I, as an average citizen, should know nothing about the business side of Hollywood. The names of entertainment company CEOs, ideally, would remain complete mysteries to me. I'm here for the art, man, not to learn about stock numbers. Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world which means I know who David Zaslav is. Warner Brothers' 2022 merger with Discovery Media and Zaslav's appointment to the corporation's throne seems to have thrown things into chaos. WB's attempt to build their own superhero cinematic universe to rival Disney/Marvel's became a load-bearing wall in the company's existence, despite the series always trailing behind their direct competition. James Wan's "Aquaman" had been one of the few unarguable hits of the DC Extended Universe, which obviously meant a sequel immediately went into production. Zaslav, however, pinned the entire future of the franchise on "The Flash," the kind of behind-the-scenes fiascos that books are written about. (Following "Justice League," already an example of an equally staggering production clusterfuck.) By the time "Aquaman 2" made it to theaters, "The Flash" had bombed to such a degree that an entire reboot of the cinematic DC Universe was already announced. This meant "Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom" was the dying gasps of a failed endeavor, the unintentionally final chapter in an attempt to build an international brand. That's not the only reason the sequel failed to repeat the original's billion dollar success. Many other factors were involved in "Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom" being the latest victim of superhero fatigue. Few of them where the fault of James Wan and the rest of the creative team. As a genuine fan of Aquaman as a comic book character, let me attempt to autopsy what the sequel got right, what it did wrong, and why it failed to resonate with a public that ate up the first one. 

Since defeating his brother and ascending to the throne of Atlantis, Arthur Curry's life has changed considerably. He's taken Mera as his queen and beget a son, Arthur Jr. Balancing the duties of fatherhood, ruling a kingdom, and being a head-smashing oceanic superhero has been difficult though. As a global climate crisis cripples Atlantis, Arthur is faced with an old foe returning. Black Manta, still determined to take revenge on Aquaman, has acquired an ancient black trident. The weapon is possessed by the spirit of Kordax, the inhuman king of a cursed Atlantean kingdom that was imprisoned in Arctic ice centuries ago. Kordax is using Manta's hunger for revenge to burn Orichalcum, a powerful fuel source with disastrous effects on the environment, to free himself and his army. Arthur seeks out the help of an unexpected source to stop Black Manta's destructive quest: His brother Orm, the Ocean Master. The two will have to overcome their legendary sibling rivalry if they hope to save the world. 

Much of the first "Aquaman's" success, I suspect, can be attributed to the public's love of Jason Momoa's goofy dude-bro persona. Momoa's sex appeal and charm turned a character probably regarded as a joke by many into a huge moneymaker. Not unreasonably, Momoa was given more control over the sequel, first pitching an idea for a follow-up during production of the original. This means "Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom" features far more of Momoa's silly machismo. He begins the film with a monologue about how boring he finds his kingly duties and how much more he'd rather be fighting bad guys. The subsequent action scene is scored to "Born to Be Wild," among the most obvious of dad rock needle drops. Throughout the sequel, he extols the virtues of cheeseburgers, beer, and fist fights. Now that Aquaman is a dad, the sequel turns Arthur Curry into more of a meat-headed tough guy with a heart of gold that loves his son. It removes the cinematic Aquaman further from the complex character he is on the page while also showing the limits of Momoa's charms. He's amusing when doing the cartoonish surfer guy angle but the sequel is unable to add much more depth. Momoa and Arthur Curry with him becomes a more two-dimensional – and perhaps annoying at times –  caricature. 

This goes hand-in-hand with an overall goofier tone. There are multiple jokes throughout the first ten minutes about Arthur Jr. peeing in his dad's face. The image of an infant telepathically communicating via psychic waves emanating from his head crops up a few times. Topo the Octopus played the drums in one scene in the first "Aquaman," an in-joke that became an internet meme. Now Topo has graduated to a proper supporting player, leading to the hero dismissively making rude comments to the squishy cephalopod. John Rhys Davis as the Brine King, the odd crab humanoid, is given a larger role too while Storm the giant seahorse also gets the spotlight for a sequence. Arthur tricking his brother into eating a cockroach is a running gag. All of this and more contributes to a far sillier, jokier tone. Wan's first "Aquaman" didn't take itself that seriously and it was a license for the film to embrace a delightful, imaginative looseness. The sequel doubles down on the silly without raising the amusement and imagination much, making the limitations of this approach much more evident.

James Wan and David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick supposedly took inspiration from the Silver Age era of comics when writing “The Lost Kingdom.” This is fitting, as that was the era when Aquaman became one of the few superheroes to be an active family man. During that time, Mera would often accompany him on his adventures, Aqualad and Aquagirl became part of the team, and even Arthur Jr. was sometimes involved in the shenanigans under the name Aquababy. This era would come to a definitive end with issue #452 of “Adventure Comics,” published in August of 1977. That is when Black Manta murdered Arthur's toddler son, in what is surely one of the darkest events in superhero comics up to that point. It's a notorious story and one the sequel hints at, with Black Manta abducting the child in the last third. All throughout production, the question of whether “Aquaman 2” would go that far floated over it. That would certainly distinguish the film from the rest of the superhero lot.

Unsurprisingly, this light-hearted superhero adventure does not climax with infanticide. Unwilling to murder a baby, the sequel instead attempts to emphasize the theme of family. Mera getting injured by Black Manta is what drives him on this mission. His dad and mother get larger roles, with the plot eventually bending towards the two brothers learning to forgive each other. It's a nice idea but it proves to be an element more informed than depicted. Amber Heard somehow became the center point of right-wing hatred after she sued her alcoholic ex-husband with a history of erratic behavior. How exactly this effected the production of “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” remains largely within the realm of tabloid gossip. However, we do know that Amber Heard's role in the film was reduced during reshoots. Mera is practically a non-entity throughout long stretches of the film. Meanwhile, it's tricky to fight crime with a baby strapped to your back, meaning Arthur Jr. spends a lot of time with his granddad. Ultimately, it's hard to take the movie's claims of being about a love of family when it intentionally forces the hero apart from his wife and son for long stretches of its runtime. 

Superhero movies being subjected to extensive re-shoots and essentially rewritten in the editing room has become standard practice over the last decade. You might go so far as to call it the Marvel Method. While we can only speculate exactly on how “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” was re-shuffled after filming, the effect is undeniably felt. The sequel is overly burdened with exposition and back-story all throughout. Concepts – like the nature of the desert prison Orm is kept in or this mysterious fuel source Manta is exploiting – are sloppily introduced in voice-over during visual montages. Seemingly important plot points, like a plague sweeping through Atlantis and killing Willem DaFoe's Vulko, are relegated to easily missed lines of dialogue. The worst example of this occurs in the last third. The entire backstory of Kordax and the Lost Kingdom – otherwise known as the thing that gives the sequel its subtitle – is delivered in one massive exposition dump with less than an hour to go. The impression that the film had a litany of ideas and concepts to introduce, but no organic way to set them up in the narrative, occurs throughout all of “Aquaman 2.”

These are not the only ideas in “The Lost Kingdom” that seem like they are going to be important but are abandoned quickly. The opening montage suggests that weary is the head that wears the crown, Arthur finding himself ill-suited to being royalty. This is a frequent theme in the “Aquaman” comics and seems like it's going to add additional tension to the sequel's story. Arthur busting Orm out of jail potentially makes him a traitor to his own state. Instead, this idea never really builds to anything. Similarly, earlier scenes also suggest that Atlantis revealing itself to the surface is going to be a major plot thread throughout. It's not, being mentioned in this early sequence and coming back for the final sequence, but never actually being incorporated into the plot. All of this suggests that many different ideas were floated for “Aquaman 2,” some of them being incorporated into different drafts and cuts of the film, and the final result is a compromised combination of all of them.

In other words, “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” is a bit of a mess, clearly at the mercy of behind-the-scenes studio politics and endless re-structuring in post-production. Despite that, the movie still managed to entertain me. Once Arthur and Orm are teamed-up, the sequel becomes a rather entertaining movie in the buddy cop mold. Two guys who don't like each other, for reasons perhaps more personal than usual, are forced together on an adventure. During this wild journey, they will learn to respect each other and maybe love each other too. Watching that play out, with recovering villain Orm proving himself or Arthur risking his neck for the guy, is the smoothest element of the script. Moreover, the chemistry between Jason Momoa and Patrick Wilson provides a lot of pep to the second half. Momoa, in full-on goofy surfer dude mode, plays nicely off Wilson as the humorless Orm. That the brothers literally come from different words, and have totally different perspectives on everything, makes their dynamic juicier. When the sequel doesn't let its own overdone script get in its way, and focuses on the spark between these two, is when it manages to be most amusing.

Something that made the first “Aquaman” a lot better than expected was James Wan fully embracing the Saturday morning cartoon nuttiness of the material. While the sequel is probably too goofy overall, you can tell that the director is having a great time playing around with this mega-sized budget. Wan's loyalty to New Line Cinema meant he never got the call from Disney to work on a “Star Wars.” No matter, because Wan simply makes an underwater “Star Wars” here. A battle through the transportation tubes of Atlantis, an elaborate CGI dog-fight with high-tech vehicles patterned after various aquatic animals, brings the trench run of George Lucas' space opera to mind. The influence becomes impossible to deny once Arthur and Orm visit a seedy hang-out for pirates. Full of bizarre aquatic creatures, a colorful band of inhuman singers, and a corpulent and monstrous crime boss at the center, it's a moment clearly evocative of Mos Eisley and Jabba's palace. Both of these scenes are a lot of fun too, featuring creative applications of the underwater setting and more moments of the heroes reacting to the strange shit around them.

“Star Wars” is not the only influence that Wan wears on his sleeve here. Black Manta's base of operation is a secluded volcanic island. The burning of Orichalcum has mutated the local flora and fauna. Which means Arthur and Orm have to run through an island gauntlet of giant killer bugs and man-eating plants. Yes, Wan is allowed to get a little "King Kong" into this brew. The homage is made obvious when the two brothers have to run across a statue precariously balanced between a massive gorge. Putting some enormous, flesh-eating locusts and giant carnivorous plants in your pulpy adventure story is a great way to win me over. Moreover, this represents "The Lost Kingdom" at its most fast-paced and fleet-footed, getting laughs and thrills out of this mismatched pair running from and outsmarting some king-sized beasties. Presumably the script for "Aquaman 2" being so overloaded is why the film didn't go the extra mile and make the setting Dinosaur Island, to further the "Kong" connection.

Among the influences James Wan actually pointed out was Mario Bava's “Planet of the Vampires.” I suppose this is evident in the sequences of old, undead monsters being awoken from an ancient sleep. The finale of Kordax and his army of undead warriors is the most obvious example of Wan sneaking his horror influence into his superhero sequel. Black-boned skeletons, shrouded in green-burning fire, and wielding medieval weapons is something that could fit on a heavy metal album cover. These zombie-like elements are mixed with tentacles creatures emerging from the deep, which brings certain Lovecraftian vibes to the material. Probably my favorite horror-esque touch are those blood-drinking, skeletal warriors living in the desert and running around on bizarre, reptilian monster steeds. That was cool.

That's what sticks in my mind about “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom.” As a comic book, action movie spectacle, it still delivers some impressive moments. The desert chase concludes with Orm emerging from the beach, Patrick Wilson's rippling pectorals returned, and an impressive melee fighting. A battle in Black Manta's base with a huge, robotic octopus vehicle features a massive anchor on a chain being swung around, a dynamic prop. When Arthur and Black Manta finally go toe-to-toe in the last act, after a whole movie building up their confrontation, the resulting fight scene features some smooth, clever camera movements as the weapons swing through the air. These moments remind us that these movies are based on comic books, of striking images strung together panel by panel.

That the action scenes are exciting are nice. However, the sequel seems to lack a convincing villain. “The Lost Kingdom” redeems Ocean Master, Patrick Wilson allowed to turn the over-the-top bad guy of the first movie into someone more sympathetic. That means Black Manta, now established as Arthur's arch-nemesis with a potent grudge, should rise to the role of proper antagonist, right? Yahya Abdul-Mateen II remains incredibly intense throughout the part, almost comically so. He is bathed with a layer of sweat in every scene, his eyes always wide as he remains utterly focused on destroying his foe. And Manta does drive the plot... By being pushed around by the ancient spirit of Kordax. The villain spends the whole obsessing with Aquaman but doesn't actually confront him until the finale. The result is that the film's antagonist feels like a flunky for an eldritch entity. Who, by the way, is defeated in a hugely anticlimactic fashion. Ultimately, try as the film might, it can't make Aquaman's comic book adversaries – whether it be his all-time most frequent enemy or the green-skinned, blonde, one-armed, accursed prince – into truly memorable characters. 

“Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” also includes a moral about global warming. Out of control climate change is melting the polar ice caps, creating increasingly erratic weather patterns, and causing disease to spread among the Atlanteans. This is an important element to cook into your mass-appeal blockbuster, since climate change is a very real threat to all of us here in the real world. Unfortunately, there's a reason fantasy stories like this were not meant to directly address real world issues. Because the polar ice caps melting, in the DC Universe, isn't bad because it'll flood coastlines and lead to the deaths and displacements of millions... It's because it'll unleash an ancient evil. Similarly, the ice caps aren't melting because unchecked corporate greed keeps the majority of the globe dependent on fossil fuels. It's because a high-tech pirate is burning an ancient super-fuel that was locked away centuries before. The result comes off as good-intentioned but hopelessly clumsy. The moral is twisted, making real world evil an accessory to comic book supervillainy. 

The overall reaction to “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” seems to have been a negative one. Many seem to agree that the sequel strayed too far into its own goofiness. The controversary around Amber Heard – a manufactured attempt to disparage a woman leaving an abusive marriage, in my opinion – nevertheless stained the sequel's reputation. A vocal minority of embittered fanboys were still stung about Zack Snyder's miserabilist vision of the DC Universe being tossed aside. A combination of oversaturation and the extended pause of the COVID pandemic changing the world's priorities ended the era of superhero movies dominating our pop culture, it would seem. All these factors combined to prevent “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom” from being a hit on the scale of the first. It's a deeply compromised, incredibly uneven movie, that probably was never meant to support the stakes placed on it. That doesn't mean there isn't some fun to be had here. Jason Momoa has hung up his trident, next scheduled to play intentionally ridiculous space biker Lobo, the DC character he probably should've been cast as from the get-go. His tenure as Aquaman – it remains to be seen if another actor will ever fill the green and orange tights – represents an interesting, sporadically fun attempt to turn the much malign superhero into a global phenomenon. [Grade: B-]

Among Wan's unrealized projects was a spin-off of “Aquman” centering on The Trench, the man-like fish monsters that popped up in a few scenes in the first movie. That shows the director's interest in horror stories about humanoids from the deep. That fascination seemed destined to climax with Wan directing a remake of “Creature from the Black Lagoon,” as part of Universal's latest attempt to retrofit their classic monster characters for the modern age. He's also working on a feature adaptation of Lovecraft's “The Call of Cthulhu,” further suggesting that gilled horrors from beyond the briny deep are on his mind lately. It's been about a year since we've heard any updates on either of those projects, so who knows if they'll make it to the screen. Until then, Wan is staying busy as a producer, shepherding other franchises and filmmakers through his Atomic Monster studio. I think Wan is mixed talent, having made some movies I liked and some I didn't care for much at all, but he's certainly a more distinctive filmmaker than I previously gave him credit for. I hope whatever he makes next is closer in tone to “Malignant” than “The Conjuring 2.”

Director Report Card: James Wan (2018)

9. Aquaman

In 1939, newsstands would be introduced to a superhero inspired by classic tales of seafaring adventure and the myth of Atlantis, ideas likely pushed into the zeitgeist by the naval battles of a quickly escalating World War II. The soon-to-be iconic character was named... Namor the Submariner, created by Bill Everett and first appearing in Marvel Comics #1, published by a company then known as Timely Comics. Two years later, in 1941, competitor DC Comics would introduce their own maritime do-gooder. First appearing in issue #73 of More Fun Comics, and created by Paul Norris and Mort Weisinger, was Aquaman. Though fairly distinct from each other in the Golden Age, the two oceanic defenders would develop suspiciously similar profiles over the years. Aquaman grabbed Namor's origin, as the offspring of a surface dweller and a runaway Atlantean royalty, while Namor swiped Aquaman's telepathic rapport with all water-dwelling animals. Aquaman survived the end of the forties' fascination with superhero comics by being the back-up feature in Adventure Comics, a book anchored by the ever-popular Superboy. That's how a long-time second-stringer – who didn't have his own book or even appear on a cover until twenty years after his introduction – would slowly eclipse his watery rival in terms of public knowledge. That boost in popularity can probably be attributed to Aquaman, now with the civilian identity of Arthur Curry, becoming a founding member of the Justice League of America in 1960. 

That led to the character appearing on the Saturday morning cartoon series, "Super Friends." That show, in one form or another, ran for twelve years. In that time, it would reach a far wider audience than the most popular comic book ever could, despite the typically subpar standards of seventies television animation. While Superman and Batman's reputation survived co-starring alongside Wonder Dog and Gleek, Aquaman's largely did not. The seemingly scope-limiting requirement that his adventures take place near water, and his powers being widely mischaracterized as "talking to fish," combined to make Aquaman a favorite target of hacky comedians for years afterwards. As late as 2004, the character was still public shorthand for a lame superhero among people who don't actually read comic books. That is the year the idea of a big budget "Aquaman" movie became a running gag on "Entourage." Such a concept was considered that absurd and improbable at the time. 

That was before the decade defining success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which turned relatively obscure and easily mocked characters like Hawkeye, Rocket Raccoon and Ant-Man into the stars of billion-dollar grossing movies. Punchline though he may be, Aquaman was still way more famous than those guys. This meant Warner Brothers was completely serious about developing an "Aquaman" movie as part of their somewhat late, largely ill-fated attempt to create a Marvel-like franchise around their pantheon of DC Comics heroes. And comic writers had made many attempts to rehabilitate Aquaman's image over the years. His stories got a lot more intense, his archenemy killing his infant son and his marriage to longtime wife Mera falling apart. He led the Justice League for a bit. He got a cooler costume, quickly abandoned because it was too hard to draw. In the nineties, a well-received retooling from Peter David focused on the mythic fantasy element. That brought with it an edgy new look that included a pirate-like hook hand and beard. When Geoff Johns brought back the Silver Age look and origin – while occasionally nodding at the character's status as the butt of many lame jokes – that was successful as well. Various cartoons and video games leaned into the observation that Aquaman is actually pretty cool, playing up his status as a noble king, a family man, a large ham, an environmental protector, and a legitimate bad-ass that can go toe-to-toe with Superman and Batman. By the 2010s, the likelihood of the public turning out for a big budget "Aquaman" movie seemed totally plausible. 

Thus, Warner Brothers went ahead with the idea, saying in 2013 that a film based on the character was a high priority. Aquaman would appear in Zack Snyder's hyper-grim "Batman V. Superman" before having a starring role in the behind-the-scenes clusterfuck that was "Justice League." While neither film were the hits Warner Brothers needed them to be, casting Jason Momoa as the ocean protector was extremely well received. Especially the decision to make sure the TV heartthrob was shirtless as often as possible. By this time, I was seeing the friends of my mother and other people who have never gone near a comic shop in their lives declaring they "loved Aquaman." Warner Brothers had begun using New Line Cinema's horror flicks as a place to recruit directors who could work efficiently for their superhero productions. This is how James Wan made the leap from "The Conjuring" to "Aquaman." The director chose the character because he perceived him as having lower stakes, seeing more freedom to do his own thing with a less beloved property than a better known one. This promise of "funderwater adventure" was the right instinct to follow. Utilizing the same eye for outrageous action that made "Furious 7" a billion-dollar grosser, Wan's "Aquaman" would defy the odds and also become an eight figure success.

Drawing mostly from Johns' New 52 run, "Aquaman" explains the hero's origins as the son of lighthouse keeper Thomas Curry and Atlanta, aquatic royalty fleeing an arranged marriage. Arthur grows into a defender of the seas, able to breathe underwater, swim at superhuman speeds, telepathically control sea life, lift submarines with ease, and survive freezing, crushing depths. He is reluctant to embrace his status as Atlantean royalty however. The water manipulating Atlantean warrior Mera arrives to try and recruit Arthur. His half-brother King Orm has gone mad with power, seeking to declare himself master of the oceans and start a war with the surface world. As the son of the (still missing) queen, Arthur has the right to challenge his brother for the throne. He's slowly talked into it, beginning an adventure that takes him and Mera on a quest to retrieve the magical trident of the first king of Atlantis and prevent war. 

By 2018, the formula for superhero movies had been well established. You run through the hero's origin and introduce a villain for him to tangle with, hopefully one related to said origin in some way. There's a climax full of CGI destruction, sometimes with a beam of light shooting into the heavens. By the end, our good guy fully embraces his status as a superhero, ready for further adventures in potential sequels gratuitously hinted at in this first film. Working with a script from "The Conjuring 2's" David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick and Will Beall, Wan's "Aquaman" does not challenge this set-up. Barely acknowledging that it takes place after "Justice League," frequent flashbacks establish Arthur's beginnings as the son of two worlds and his training from a wise mentor. The sequence where Mera takes Arthur to Atlantis for the first time, and he's introduced to a dazzling and technologically advanced kingdom he had no idea existed, is clearly inspired by "Black Panther." The plot eventually turns into a standard MacGuffin chase, as Arthur and Mera seek a plot device that will solve all their problems. This takes them to a number of scenic locations, the constant pursuit from Orm's henchmen allowing for frequent action set-pieces. It concludes in a massive underwater war, equal parts "Avengers" and "Lord of the Rings." Shout-outs to the comics appear right on time to get cheers out of the nerds in the audience, a bigger world and history established that future continuations can explore. 

In other words, "Aquaman" is a bunch of phooey, derivative of other movies and comfortable existing totally within the perimeters of its genre. Which isn't to say the movie isn't wildly entertaining. Wan and his team keep the approach light throughout. "Aquaman" is, in many ways, a fish-out-of-water – pun fully intended – romantic comedy. As someone raised on land, thoroughly modern and common in his attitudes, Arthur finds Atlantis to be a strange, unusual and stuffy place. Likewise, Mera is unfamiliar with surface culture. This is illustrated in a cute scene where she makes friends with a little girl in an Italian villa. The two can't stand each other at first but, as Arthur proves his worthiness and Mera lightens up a little, they fall for each other. It's a cute progression, the movie following these two misfits as they learn more about each other's world and slowly develop feelings for one another. It's a good way to introduce the audience to this world and this duo. 

Making "Aquaman" into a partial rom-com plays to its leading man's strengths. In the comics, Aquaman is usually ambiguous about his status as king and often torn between the world he was raised in and the world he was born to protect. How often he uses humor to lighten his load or how much he sees superheroing as a burden or a joy varies from writer to writer. Mostly, he's a serious guy, his wife and family keeping him grounded as he grapples with protecting the seas and tricky Atlantean politics. As played by Jason Momoa, Arthur Curry becomes a long-haired, beer-gulping dude's dude. He is a super-macho brawler who carries a secret pain about being abandoned by his mom and rejected by both the sea and the surface. Mostly, he copes by being kind of a goofball. He's a stinky smart-ass that seems dim (though actually isn't) but mostly rejects the casual sexism once associated with the surfer bro attitude. He's a modern wholesome himbo, designed to appeal to a certain population of women who like their guys hunky and hyper-masculine but also sweet and non-intimidating. This makes Aquaman into a totally different character from what exists in the comics, not dissimilar to how Thor acts in the later Marvel movies. The script bends Aquaman around Jason Momoa's celebrity image as a self-aware sex symbol and chill biker guy, also incorporating his Polynesian heritage into Arthur's backstory. As a fan of the character's traditional portrayal, it definitely took me a little time to adapt to this wildly different take on the character. Momoa's schtick is amusing and he's an affable screen presence, making it difficult not to eventually be won over by him. I don't know if it's how I would've chosen to depict Aquaman in a movie but it is, nevertheless, a winning combination. 

Wan's "Aquaman" never comments on the cultural meme of its hero "talking to fish." In fact, Arthur Curry's telepathic bond with all the animals in the sea is shown as a devastating superpower with many practical combat applications. Don't think for a minute that the movie isn't well aware of how goofy this material supposedly is. Like many modern superhero films, "Aquaman" often uses comedy to let mainstream audiences know that it also thinks this shit is stupid and lame. One of Orm's henchman gets his head dunked in a toilet bowl. The chase through Florence often pauses for disbelieving stares from the locals. Momoa often doesn't go long without cracking a joke of some kind, which doesn't stop when the stakes are high. There's been much debate over taking such an approach to comic book material. When handled badly, random slapstick comedy and constant one-liners can drain any tension or grandeur from the story, coming off as if the filmmaker is embarrassed to be working on this nerd shit and regards what he's adapting with patronizing insincerity, if not outright contempt. 

Perhaps James Wan was a little embarrassed to be working on an "Aquaman." There are definitely times when the film feels too in-on-its-own-joke. However, any director who considers Ed and Lorraine Warren to be real world defenders of good clearly isn't in any place to look down on Aquaman. For as much as the film jokes about its fantastical scenario, there's also a full-blown embracing of the wackiness of what we are seeing here. An octopus playing the drums or narwhals impaling people with their curly horns becoming deadly are silly but it's also awesome. The film is filled with humanoid fish creatures, crab men, laser guns, pocket dimensions and magical tridents. Rather than flee from the more “comic-book-y” elements of the material, the film embraces it. Aquaman rides a giant seahorse, Mera wears a gown made of jellyfish, and Orm actually refers to himself by the supervillain name of Ocean Master. The story is fully absorbed in the absurd mythology of its setting, throwing around names like Xebel and Atlan and the Brine King without any shame.

Another smart decision “Aquaman” makes tonally is packing the supporting cast with sturdy actors who never blink in the face of all this silliness. If Jason Momoa's lead performance is mostly tongue-in-cheek, he's surrounded by performers who play the material as grand opera. Nicole Kidman, as the misplaced queen, and Patrick Wilson as Orm all approach their roles as larger-than-life mythic figures. Wilson brings an edge of Olympian melodrama to his gestures and dialogue, while Kidman is totally committed to the nonsense she has to spew here. Willem Dafoe is similarly straight-faced in the even more standard role of Vulko, a generic wise mentor role imbued with Dafoe's gravelly charm. Amber Heard and Dolph Lundgren – inexplicably cast as daughter and father – aren't consumite pros on the level of Kidman or Dafoe. Heard is never as enchanting as Mera needs to be, doing better as the bitchy straight-woman to Momoa's antics. Dolph does bring some regality to a mostly thankless supporting part. Mostly, it's simply neat to see him in a high-profile film like this after years in the direct-to-video ghetto.  

As in “Furious 7,” Wan approaches the action in a largely theatrical style. The action scene in Italy feels the most like a sequence from one of the “Fast” movies, a high-impact foot chase across the rooftops of the village. People smashing through walls and buildings stand in for cars and trucks flipping and crashing. The climax of this sequence is a cool shot of Black Manta tossed from a cliff, the camera careening down the mountainside with him. The superhero genre allows for flashier special effects, of course. Mera's hard water powers lead to several novel images. When Aquaman boards a submarine under siege from pirates, the movie delights in using the tight interiors of the location to creates some comic panel-like shots. Don Burgess' cinematography suits this material much better than “The Conjuring,” the camera weaving dramatically through the CGI sets. The oceanic setting lends itself to some colorful visuals, like Atlantis being lit by bioluminescence or a flare falling through the deep.

The latter image is the climax of another high-light of “Aquaman.” On their quest to locate the mythical Trident of Atlan, Arthur and Mera encounter the Trench. That's an underwater race of monstrous fish-men, heavily recalling Lovecraft's Deep Ones and the Creature from the Black Lagoon. The set piece, of the monsters swarming around Arthur and Mera on a storm-tossed boat, heavily recalls Wan's horror work. This is not the only time the director is clearly using the superhero movie budget to indulge his inner monster kid. The plot weaves in a lost world setting, allowing some dinosaurs to appear. This is shortly before the movie throws in a proper kaiju, in the form of a Kraken-like enormous cephalopod. All of these elements are taken from the “Aquaman” comics. However, you can tell the chance to include stuff he obviously loves was probably a deciding factor in Wan choosing this superhero over The Flash or anyone else. 

In its climax, “Aquaman” fully embraces its status as computer-generated spectacle. The finale is a massive underwater war sequence, with lots of crustacean casualties, Mosasaur steeds, subaquatic explosions, and every thing that swims and crawls in the sea being weaponized. It is an unending assault on all the senses, unbearably loud and frenetic, with any number of digital effects being tossed directly into the viewer. (Literally if you saw the movie projected in 3D.)  Alternatively, it is a gleefully goofy burst of epic nonsense, the movie going out of its way to top itself in the last half-hour. Just when the film seems to have pushed past the point of total ridiculousness, it's reeled back in for the final showdown between Arthur and Orm, which smartly takes place as a one-on-one melee. If you have the patience or tolerance for superhero movie shenanigans, there's no denying that this is a well done example. I suppose it depends on if you think a fleet of murderous orcas coming to the rescue of a John Rhys Davis-voiced crab monster is delightful or intolerable. 

“Aquaman” wouldn't be a modern superhero movie if it didn't go out of its way to leave some narrative crumbs for a sequel to exploit. This is mostly apparent in the subplot surrounding Black Manta. Anybody a little familiar with the source material probably know that Black Manta is Aquaman's number one foe and most persistent enemy. Ocean Master obviously makes more sense as the bad guy for a first “Aquaman” adventure but he wasn't on the Legion of Doom, so who cares, right? The movie, smartly skipping the militant black separatist or evil autism origins, goes out of its way to establish the personal grudge between the sea pirate and the next King of Atlantis. The distinctively helmeted enemy weaves in and out of the story, never quite justifying his appearances beyond the expectation that he'll get more to do next time. Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, an actor Hollywood was really insisting on turning into a big star around this time, cranks the blustery, sweaty intensity up as high as possible in the part. It's the most blatant example of the movie setting up shit for a follow-up but, I will say, at least the suit looks really good. 

In fact, all the costumes in “Aquaman” are quite good. Arthur suiting up in the orange and green is rightfully treated as a cheer-worthy moment, while Mera and Orm's own duds look suitably accurate to the comic book source material. Rupert Gregson-Williams' score is full of sweeping themes and ear-catching melodies, adding a properly grand feeling. As a final display of the sincerity with which it approaches the characters, the end credits are accompanied by a nineties-style love ballad written specifically for the film. Obviously, I'm unusually fond of this particular strain of bullshit. Considering how little respect Aquaman usually gets as a character, his big movie only being a little self-reflectively dumb might have been a best case scenario. By no means rising above the standards of the genre, it's still a joyfully silly two hours and twenty-three minutes. Any movie that casts Julie Andrews as a sea monster is having too much fun to ultimately denied. That the public ate it up is all the more delightful to me. The “Aquaman” movie pleased this long-time fan while also making this particular corner of the DC universe appealing to a wide audience. It also beat that other aquatic superhero to the big screen by four years, once again solidifying Aquaman as the preferred deep sea defender by the public at large. [Grade: B+]

Director Report Card: James Gunn (2021)

5. The Suicide Squad

While Marvel’s cinematic universe has really changed the way big budget movies are made and released, their Distinguished Competition at Warner Brothers have struggled to do the same thing. By tying their iconic characters to the nihilistic vision of Zack Snyder, they slowly alienated larger swaths of their audience. It’s notable that their biggest superhero successes, “Wonder Woman” and “Aquaman,” shared little stylistic similarities to Snyder’s films. The third film in the DC Extended Universe, David Ayer’s “Suicide Squad,” awkwardly attempted to fuse Snyder’s grim-and-gritty style with a more light-hearted course correction. When combined with a jumbled screenplay and an obvious deluge of reshoots and re-edits, the result was a film that made 746 million dollars but was actually liked by few people. So it's unsurprising that Ayers' replacement, James Gunn – during his brief departure from the Marvel Universe – would disregard many of the first film's elements for his sequel. The result is "The Suicide Squad," an example of a tonally distinct film that both is and isn't a sequel. 

Gunn maintains the general premise of the first film: Ruthless director Amanda Waller sends incarcerated supervillains on secret missions, promising them clemency if they survive. If. This time, Harley Quinn and supervising soldier Rick Flagg lead a team to Corto Maltese, an island nation whose dictatorship government has recently been overthrown by an anti-American military coup. The new government is in possession of a powerful secret weapon, which the Suicide Squad is tasked with destroying. Harley and Flagg's team is quickly massacred and meet up with a second team, led by assassin Bloodsport and hyper-nationalistic super-soldier Peacemaker. The quirky team of misfits soon discover the weapon is extraterrestrial in nature and their objective is not exactly what they've been told. 

Though he's most well-known for his smart-assed but heartfelt "Guardians of the Galaxy" films, long time James Gunn fans know he got his start with Troma, those notorious New Jersey purveyors of gleefully trashy indie horror. "The Suicide Squad" harkens back to Gunn's roots. This big budget studio movie features many of the Troma trademarks. Such as over-the-top but distinctly mean-spirited violence, crude humor, and subversive if fuzzy social satire. Before the opening credits play, "The Suicide Squad" features two graphically exploding heads and a litany of explicit dismemberments. The movie relishes in its R-rated mayhem, with more splattering innards than you usually see in a corporate-owned superhero movie. The dialogue is often colorfully vulgar and there's some random full-frontal nudity. As in Troma, the messy execution of human life and the juvenile humor go hand-in-hand.

Yet as much "The Suicide Squad" sees Gunn returning to his Fangoria days, the movie still resembles his previous superhero work in several key ways. As in the "Guardians of the Galaxy" movies, this is the story of bickering, amoral outsiders coming together to form a makeshift family while saving the world. Over the course of their mission, this Suicide Squad goes from hating each other to being good friends. (The survivors do anyway.) Gunn's extends this theme even further, cleverly depicting society's most oppressed misfits rising up to save all of us. The director's love of weirdos and losers has now emerged as the defining characteristic of his career.

Combining such mean-spirited violence with a gooey moral about camaraderie probably shouldn't work. Yet Gunn finds an unexpected sincerity among all the death and sarcastic one-liners.  As in the "Guardians'" films, many of the supervillains here are linked by parental issues. Bloodsport's dad was an abusive psychopath, training him to be a killer from the minute he was born. He's so screwed-up that he decides the best thing he can do for his own daughter is stay out of her life. Polka-Dot Man's powers are the direct result of his abusive scientist mother. The youngest member of the team, the rodent-controlling Ratcatcher 2, had a good relationship with her dad but he died of a drug overdose some time ago. The members of the team who don't have daddy issues are still longing for companionship. Harley Quinn is still trying to define herself beyond her abusive relationship with the Joker while King Shark, who is strangely child-like despite being a man-eating shark monster, has never had any friends before in his life. The film is smart enough to pause the carnage long enough to establish it actually cares about these characters and the loneliness that binds them. 

Weirdly, I found the film's R-rated excess to be a detriment to it at times. As in multiple Troma productions and the Gunn-scripted "Belko Experiment," there's a real ugliness to the gore here. Unlike Gunn's "Super," which found meaning and catharsis in its bloodshed, too often the death here seems unnecessarily cruel. Meanwhile, the film's potty-mouthed dialogue isn't quite as funny as it should be. In a post-"Deadpool" world, there's not much novelty in seeing superheroes tell dick jokes and say "fuck." Honestly, I found myself wondering if the leash Gunn's family-friendly Disney masters strap on him isn't good for the director. 

Yet the movie's sense of humor eventually won me over. That's because it eventually stops focusing so much on snickering at penises and four-lettered words and devotes itself to a more absurd breed of wackiness. Polka-Dot Man's disturbing fixation on his mother manifests itself in a very literal way, which the film delights in showing us. In fact, Gunn transforms Polka-Dot Man – a D-list Batman villain whose only remembered because he's so fucking goofy – in an amusingly grotesque creation whose abilities are as much debilitating condition as they are a superpower. Sometimes, the movie even goes on delightfully surreal little digressions. Such as when King Shark befriends a group of colorful jellyfish-like creatures or Harley Quinn's rampage being paired with cartoon birds and colorful flower petals bursting though the air.

No matter how different Gunn's "Suicide Squad" is from David Ayer's, both films run into a similar problem: It's hard to build a smooth narrative around so many different characters. For a long stretch of the story, Harley Quinn is separated from the rest of the cast. She functions off in her own subplot, involving the president of Corto Maltese attempting to seduce her, that doesn't really connect with the rest of the movie for a long time. Supposedly, this subplot was even more extensive in earlier cuts of the movie, before the movie was trimmed down to a more reasonable runtime. Which seems to suggest “The Suicide Squad” was in the awkward position of functioning as both a team movie and as another one of WB's Harley Quinn spin-offs. Even after this subplot wraps up, Harley never quite feels like a member of the rest of the team.

Whether you're a fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe or not, you can probably agree that the superhero franchise's political campus is indecisive at best. Even when it's criticizing the military industrial complex, it's still operating as propaganda for it. “The Suicide Squad” clearly takes a more decisive viewpoint on this subject... Up to a certain point. Peacemaker's status as a super-nationalistic American soldier, who would do absolutely anything for his country, criticizes the idea of American exceptionalism. As the story progresses, the Suicide Squad discovers their actual mission is to cover up evidence of American atrocities abroad. That's a pretty subversive perspective for a big budget superhero flick to take, admitting action heroes like this are just tools of American imperialism... Yet the film still kind of chickens out in the end, the protagonists' amoral nature allowing the script to stop just short of having the U.S. face actual consequences for its crimes.

Despite its flaws, “The Suicide Squad” is still a really entertaining motion picture. Gunn clearly enjoys engineering some more grounded combat sequences. A sequence devoted to Bloodsport and Peacemaker competing over who is the more effective killer is amusingly flippant, in its dialogue and visual construction. A later fight is partially seen reflected in the super-patriot's shiny helmet. Harley Quinn's javelin assisted rampage, while escaping her captives, is another highlight of the movie, an extended sequence of energetic slaughter. Overall, Gunn enjoys messing around with the movie's sense of time and place. The narrative cuts back-and-forth a few times, while the title cards are created within the film's locations in a very comic-book-y fashion.

Mostly, I found “The Suicide Squad” delightful because of the way it embraces the goofier corners of the DC Universe. Here's the truth: I love King Shark. The humanoid shark monster is an irresistible image. Across the comics and various adaptations, King Shark has been characterized as everything from a mindless killing machine, a tragic monster, a devious schemer, and a nerdy computer expert. In “The Suicide Squad,” King Shark becomes a lovable oaf with a murderous streak. He still gobbles people whole or tears mooks in two. Yet his largely monosyllabic dialogue reveals a child-like personality that mostly just longs for friendship. This idea is aided by the fantastic CGI, which emphasizes the shark monster's pudgy body and big, puppy-like eyes.

If King Shark is the M.V.P. of “The Suicide Squad,” its secret final boss proves to be an even more welcomed introduction. Starro is a seminal character in DC Comics history, being the first supervillain the Justice League would come together to fight. Yet I always assumed he was an unlikely candidate for a major motion picture appearance. Strictly because a giant starfish is kind of a silly visual. “The Suicide Squad” doesn't care about that though. Starro isn't just in the movie, he's actually goofier looking here than on the comic book page. The starfish/cosmic abomination is given a bright pink coloration and a huge, highly expressive eye. Despite his cartoonish appearance, the star conqueror is still suitably intimidating. A real sense of scale is granted to the monster, making him seem enormous. The distressing fleshiness of the creature is emphasized, making Starro a disquieting threat. 

Ultimately, a capable cast helps really keeps the movie together. Gunn smartly utilizes the best performers from Ayers' “Suicide Squad.” In only her third appearance, Margot Robbie has already made herself the iconic take on Harley Quinn. She is comfortable playing up the character's outrageous sense of humor, her unhinged proclivity towards violence, as well as her vulnerable side. Viola Davis' Amanda Waller remains a ruthless voice of authority, which also makes her a comedic straight man to Gunn's quirkier band of enforcers. The sequel also totally redeems Joel Kinnaman's Rick Flagg. A generic army guy with an uninspired subplot in the first movie, now he's a funny and principled man determined to do the right thing as best he can. The sequel even manages to make good use of Jai Courtney as Captain Boomerang.

Somewhat inevitably, the newcomers come to dominate the film. Idris Elba's Bloodsport was a replacement for Will Smith's Deadshot, which is very obvious. The minor Superman villain gains several qualities associated with Deadshot, such as a daughter and his ability to turn any projectile into a deadly weapon. Yet Elba is still appealing in the part, showing a kind of gravelly vulnerability that I can't imagine Will Smith pulling off. John Cena can't quite make Peacemaker's sarcastic dialogue distinct but, as a single-minded sociopathic patriot, he's effectively chilling. If nothing else, Cena's casting twists his all-American pro-wrestling face image in a clever way. Relative newcomer Daniela Melchior, as the chronically sleepy Ratcatcher 2, is a true stand-out. She's so sincere and sweet in her motivations that it's hard to even consider her a villain. And it doesn't hurt that the film makes her team of hyper-capable rat companions as adorable as possible.

Gunn rounds out the cast with a colorful collection of largely comedic supporting characters. David Dastmalchian plays Polka-Dot Man as a deeply disturbed guy, a type of queasy humor arising from his oddball mannerisms. Yet he adds enough pathetic humanity to make the character genuinely likable despite his weirdness. Steve Agee appears as an increasingly neurotic office worker, while also doing the on-set mocap for King Shark. Sylvester Stallone provides King Shark's voice, providing a hilariously doofy voice for the child-like shark monster. The opening massacre features a number of amusing actors in bit parts. Nathan Fillion, Flula Borg, and Sean Gunn all show up as fantastically ridiculous characters, short-lived though they may be.

Despite the hype around it, “The Suicide Squad” has debuted to largely soft box office numbers. There's a lot of reasons why this could be. I think that we're still living through a pandemic, the future around that as uncertain as ever, is probably the biggest factor. Especially since audiences could stay at home and still watch the movie. That this film is a sequel to a movie that wasn't especially well-liked might be a factor. Considering “Birds of Prey” also underperformed, it's possible the public isn't as interested in R-rated superhero movies starring Harley Quinn as much as they assumed. Yet it doesn't really matter, as “The Suicide Squad” still proves to be a highly entertaining and delightfully idiosyncratic take on the superhero genre. In other words: James Gunn knows how to keep comic book projects weird and interesting, regardless if they're set in the DC or Marvel universes. [Grade: B+]

Director Report Card: Patty Jenkins (2020)

4. Wonder Woman 1984

“Wonder Woman 1984” was, like many other proposed 2020 releases, suppose to be just another big studio blockbuster. The highly anticipated sequel was originally slotted into a holiday 2019 release date before studio reshuffling had it settling into summer of 2020. We all know how that turned out. What should've been just another popcorn distraction then became the first major movie WB would release through its new HBO Max streaming service. A system largely skipping theaters to focus on streaming would completely upend the cinematic world. What the fall-out of Warner Brothers' strategy will be remains to be seen. (As will the fate of movie theaters, once COVID subsides.)  Yet another controversy would grip “Wonder Woman 1984” upon release last month: Many people didn't think it was very good. Now the time for me to judge.

Sixty-six years have passed since the end of World War I. Princess Diana of Themyscira, otherwise known as Wonder Woman, has been operating in secret all that time. While she rights what wrongs she can, Diana is still haunted by the death of Steve Trevor, her love. After a gem smuggling operation is raided, a rare stone arrives in the Smithsonian, where Diana works with a shy and awkward woman named Barbara Minerva. Neither realize that the stone is a magical relic with the ability to grant wishes. Maxwell Lord, minor TV personality and failing businessman, does know this. He gets a hold of the gem and takes its power. Soon, his wish-granting abilities sows chaos around the globe. It also brings Steve Trevor back to life and turns Barbara into the supervillain Cheetah. 

More than once, Patty Jenkins has cited Richard Donner's “Superman” movies as the primary influence on her “Wonder Woman” films. That sincerity and clarity of focus fit the first movie well enough but, for the sequel, Jenkins follows probably the least loved element of those Donner films. Namely, a seriously hokey streak. In the first major action scene featuring Gal Gadot, Wonder Woman swings through a colorful eighties shopping mall. Bank robbers with ridiculous hair-cuts are foiled. Kids stare on, wide-mouthed, in a goofy manner. This feeling, of exaggerated camp and out-of-place corniness, is not isolated to this one sequence. It seems Jenkins was also taking more than a few cues from the seventies “Wonder Woman” TV show, a tonal decision that clashes badly with what is expected of a modern superhero blockbuster. 

Moreover, on a narrative level, “Wonder Woman 1984” raises more questions than it can answer. The exact mechanics behind Max Lord's magical powers are never explained very well. He grants wishes and receives something from the wisher in return but how this affects everyone seems to vary from scene-to-scene. It seems he has to be touching people while making a wish, yet even this is inconsistent. As the film goes deeper into various elements set-up by his powers – how to undo the wishes, the mutatable properties of these wishes – things start to get increasingly fuzzy. The climax of the movie hinges on an absurd piece of technology, that strains belief even for a superhero flick. It's never a good sign when you have to pause the movie and think out a plot development before continuing. Nor when a movie includes a random, one-scene character to laboriously spout exposition.

The script makes a lot of questionable choices. Bringing Steve Trevor back isn't one of them. Yes, the exact way Steve is resurrected raises a lot of unfortunate implications. Yet the sequel most comes alive when playing up the chemistry between Gadot and Chris Pine. Dropping Trevor down into the eighties is a clever switch-a-roo on the first film's fish-out-of-water story. It also allows Pine a chance to flex his comedic muscles, as in a highly amusing montage in which Trevor discovers a love of fanny packs. If nothing else, Gadot and Pine's banter enlivens many of the sequel's scenes. 

Even if she didn't have Pine to bounce off of, Gal Gadot remains an inspired choice for Wonder Woman. Diana's arc, of learning the value of self-responsibility, is set-up gratuitously in the very first sequence. The power of truth is hammered home throughout, especially in the last third. It's another element of the film that feels shaky sometimes, as “the truth” is reduced to a platitude that is spat out countless times. Yet Gadot's pure sincerity, her style and grace, almost makes this work. The moment where she renounces her wish is a powerful bit of acting, just one example of how Gadot so ideally balances strength and vulnerability in this role. 

Yet certain connotations concerning Gadot are hard to avoid. Immediately after “Wonder Woman 1984” came out, one scene went viral in the worst way possible. I'm talking about when Max Lord meets with the leader of Bialya, a DC Comics stand-in for any number of Middle Eastern countries. When the prince wishes for the infidels to be out of his homeland, it doesn't just resurrect the moribund stereotype of the villainous Arab. Bialya is a fictional country with a long history in comic books, that doesn't match up exactly with any real world place. But this scene is clearly meant to bring the conflict between Israel and Palestine to mind. Considering Gadot's own membership in the Israeli military, and her on-going support of the government's actions, this moment becomes even uglier.

This is not the only questionable political aspect of “Wonder Woman 1984.” Max Lord is obviously patterned after Donald Trump, to a certain degree. The mop of blonde hair, his love of garishly gold interior design, eventually ending up in the White House, and status as a conman who has built a public image around the perception of being rich. (Even though his personal finances are actually in complete disarray.) He prays on people's hopes and fears and offers easy solution, but only out of a desire to make himself more powerful. As much as Lord is clearly patterned after Trump, he ultimately doesn't have much in common with our former president. Lord has a complicated relationship with his child, ultimately based in love. Near the film's end, he's given a sympathetic backstory. If you were going to pattern this cinematic bad guy so much after one of the real world's most prominent bad guys, why try and make the audience feel sympathy for him? I suspect the filmmakers were simply using Trumpian signifiers to easily identify Lord as underhanded and untrustworthy, a deeply shallow trick. 

Worst yet, Lord simply isn't that compelling a villain. Pedro Pascal's performance is cartoonish and increasingly sweaty, in an unappealing way. Luckily, the movie has a stronger secondary villain... That it makes some good and bad choices with. Kristen Wiig, despite early concerns she might be miscast, is well utilized as Barbara Minerva. A character who lacks all of Diana's natural grace, power, and charm makes for an interesting counterpoint. Watching her grow from friend to enemy is compelling, especially how Barbara's frustration grows into resentment and eventually villainy. Yet even then, I have issues. The moment where Barbara crosses the moral event horizon, a familiar step for villains of this type, is an odd choice. She kicks a harasser to death, which is only slightly more sever than what Diana did herself in an earlier scene. While her full transformation into Cheetah in the finale is decently executed, the big fight between Wonder Woman and her arch-enemy is sidelined by the rest of the movie's plot. 

Movies like this are spectacle and should be treated as such. Jenkins makes the interesting choice to not feature many action sequences for much of the movie's first half, focusing instead on character. The first big action doesn't occur until nearly an hour in, during the escape from Bialya. While there's some good stunts in this sequence, the visual framing is often kind of odd. A shot of Gadot running looks weird or the exact way a vehicle flips into the air doesn't track. Yet the action does get better as the movie goes on. A fight in the White House features some nicely choreographed fisticuffs. This continues through Wondie and Cheetah's big showdown. To continue the movie's weird choices, further action scenes are foregone for the finale. As with most of its elements, “WW84” has a really odd relationship with its action scenes.

Yet, despite its many flaws, there are still some moments in “Wonder Woman 1984” that made me cheer. Or at least smile widely. The sequel features at least two scenes I've wanted to see in a “Wonder Woman” movie for many years. That would be when Diana tosses her tiara through the air like a boomerang, a classic move. Later, the movie finds an only slightly convoluted way to get the notorious Invisible Jet into the story. That was really fun. In the modern age of comics, some people thought the Invisible Jet was silly and just gave Wonder Woman the power of flight. “WW84” follows this pattern, in a scene that is among the sequel's more uplifting. While the gold armor Diana is seen wearing in all the ads doesn't add much to the plot, it sure looks cool and leads to the film's most satisfying cameo.

When the sequel's title was announced, the natural assumption is that there was some great importance to the date and setting. If you put “1984” in the title of your movie, you expect it to tackle Orwellian themes in some ways. Disappointingly, this is not on the film's agenda. In fact, the eighties setting proves to be little but window dressing. Tension between the U.S. and the Soviet Union informs the story but that was hardly unique to 1984. The fashion and style of the time are indulged in but, otherwise, there's pretty much no reason this story had to be set in 1984. It could've been set in 1964 or 2004 without too much about the story being changed at all.

Ultimately, I understand why so many people were disappointed in “Wonder Woman 1984.” It's undeniably hokey in spots. The script is far messier than a blockbuster of this level, that had so many eyeballs on it in production, ever should've been. Its politics can only be described as tin-earred. At the same time, there are some fun action beats, a strong supporting turn from Kristen Wiig, and some entertaining moments. Were people expecting too much from this one or are my standards too low? Either way, Warner Brothers and Patty Jenkins are ready to move onto a third “Wonder Woman” movie, hopefully learning their lesson from the mistakes made here. [Grade: C+]

Director Report Card: Patty Jenkins (2017)

3. Wonder Woman

For years, the question was asked by superhero fans: Where was the “Wonder Woman” movie? The most iconic of all comic book heroines, for years Wonder Woman's on-screen legacy was limited to a campy-but-beloved TV series, failed pilots, and many cartoons. A lot of bullshit reasons kept “Wonder Woman” out of theaters, while the age of the superhero movie blossomed and DC backed “Green Lantern” and “Jonah Hex.” Executives thought an action movie starring a woman wouldn't be popular. Or that the character was too goofy. Mostly, the previous attempts to get a “Wonder Woman” movie made – in the mid-nineties, with Joel Silver and Sandra Bullock, and in the mid-2000s, with Joss Whedon and probably Kate Beckinsale – were sunk by awful sounding scripts.

Finally, after Marvel had already won the public's heart, WB/DC decided it was pass time to build their own cinematic universe around their world famous cast of characters. A “Wonder Woman” movie was finally a pressing concern. Gal Gadot was plucked out of relative obscurity to play the Amazonian warrior princess. Michelle MacLarin was signed on to direct. The character's debut would be the sole bright spot in the tediously grim “Superman V. Batman.” By then, MacLarin was out and Patty Jenkins was in, finally returning to theater screens after fourteen years. The director of a bleak character study like “Monster” might seem like an odd pic for “Wonder Woman.” Jenkins, it turns out, loves superheroes. She cites Donner's “Superman” as an inspiration, made a superhero short called “Velocity Rules” in college, and nearly directed “Thor: The Dark World.” In both cases, the wait ended up being worth it. Jenkins' “Wonder Woman” movie was exactly the one we needed.

The Amazons, the great warrior women of Greek mythology, live out their lives in peace on Themyscira. They are led by the noble Queen Hippolyta. Her daughter, Diana, is curious about combat and, despite her mother's best efforts, becomes an expert at it. One faithful day, a mysterious flying vehicle enters the ring around Themyscira. Diana rescues the man – the first man she's ever laid eyes on – from the wreckage. It's Steve Trevor, an American spy working against the Germans in World War I. Upon hearing about the Great War, Diana believes that Ares – the God of War, the Amazon's mythical adversary – is active in the world of man. She follows Steve back to London, soon heading to the Western Front, in pursuit of Ares... But Diana, known as Wonder Woman soon enough, quickly learns that the world of man is not so simple.

The best superheroes are, essentially, archetypes. Which mean they can be boiled down to very simple ideas. Superman is a god that looks up to mankind. Batman wants to save innocents. Aquaman protects the coastline. Wonder Woman, no matter how strong a fighter she might be, is ultimately motivated by compassion. The best adaptations of these characters understand these root ideas and Jenkins' “Wonder Woman” can be included in that company. Diana may be seeking to kill Ares but she's doing it to save a million other lives. We she sees the atrocities of war around her, people left in pain, driven from their homes, starving and cold, she cannot stand by. That “Wonder Woman” so keenly understands the core of its iconic protagonist is, by far, its greatest strength.

This cry for compassion spreads throughout many other scenes in the film. Upon arriving in London and meeting Etta Candy, Diana inquires about the difference between an employee and a slave. When she meets Chief Napi, an American Indian, he pauses to tell her about the plight of his people back in America. This proceeds an even more powerful scene, where Charlie – another one of Trevor's associates – wakes up from a nightmare in the grips of a PTSD flashback. For a film about a heroine motivated by compassion, it's only fitting that “Wonder Woman” allows for quieter moments focused on the real world problems its supporting characters would've faced. It's thoughtful and I appreciate that.

A big part of the “Wonder Woman” story has always involved contrasting Diana's nature with that of the world of man. Unsurprisingly, Jenkins' film uses this tradition for some fish-out-of-water comedy. A long montage is devoted to Diana trying on the various outfits considered proper for women in the 1900s, to much bafflement on her behalf. She attempts to exit a building with her sword and shield, before being confused by a revolving door. The best comedy in the film plays off Diana's inherent innocence. She squeals with delight when seeing a baby. Her reaction to tasting ice cream for the first time is one of absolute joy. It's pretty cute stuff.

Yet this comic relief is representative of Diana's overall character arc. Through the course of the film, she discovered that Ares is not responsible for the atrocities of the First World War. That man is more than capable of these things on their own. “Wonder Woman” was set in the World War I, partially to distinguish it more from Marvel's “Captain America” movie. Yet World War I was also a conflict without a clear good guy or bad guy.  The motivation of the war was hard-to-define political conflicts between various nations, without a clear adversary like Nazi Germany, and countless atrocities inflicted on innocent civilians. This proves the ideal setting for Diana to loose her innocence about human nature.

This character arc, of Diana trying to define herself in a world that is sometimes heartless, is one fiber that connects “Wonder Woman” to Jenkins' “Monster.” Another element that links Jenkins' million dollar blockbuster to her earlier work is the theme of motherhood. As in her “Five” segment, Jenkins devotes time to the sometimes challenging relationship between parent and child. Hippolyta hopes for a life of peace for her daughter. Diana, however, is drawn by her nature to fight for innocents. The two soon have to come to an agreement, that a parent can only direct their child's destiny so much. While it only occupies the first part of the film, you can see how invested Jenkins was in this idea.

With the announcement that “Wonder Woman” would finally be appearing in a big budget movie, came a world-wide search for the right actress for the role. Gal Gadot would beat out recognized names like Elodie Yung and Olga Kurylenko (who probably would've been my choice), despite having few other credits of note. While I was highly skeptical at first, Gadot is excellent in the part. She embodies the qualities we associate with the character. Gadot's Diana is powerful, compassionate, beautiful, graceful, and intelligent. Diana's strongly defined character arc also gives Gadot a chance to display her talent as an actress, proving more than up-to-the-task. While we can squabble about petty differences, about whether Gadot looks enough like an Amazon or whatever, but she's a pretty damn satisfying choice.

With Gadot proving largely an unknown, Chris Pine as Steve Trevor ends up being the marquee name in the film. It was a logical enough choice. Pine, after all, had already proven he could play a dashing, charming, rogue adventurer. What really makes Pine an inspired choice for Trevor is his chemistry with Gadot. Even though she often frustrates him, Pine shows just how charmed he is by Diana. Her noble attributes and ability to perceive the world through child-like eyes softens Trevor's heart, hardened by his experiences in the war. A dance they share in a liberated village, snow starting to fall overhead, is such a charming moment. “Wonder Woman” has to quickly establish how close these two will grow and, largely thanks to a few clever scenes and Gadot and Pine's chemistry, it totally works.

“Wonder Woman” obviously presented a lot of challenges to its filmmakers. One of which was that Patty Jenkins had never directed an action movie before. You can see her struggling a bit to handle combat scenes of this scale. Perhaps taking too much of a cue from Zack Snyder – who did, after all, produce and co-write the film – the early action sequences on Themyscira are heavy on melodramatic, slow-motion flips and dives through the air. That use of “ramping” occasionally rears its tacky head a few other times throughout the film. The more grounded action scenes, such as Trevor's raid on a bomb factory, are better. Jenkins' visual sense is at its strongest during the flashback to Ares' origin, depicted as a Greek fresco moving to life.

Even if the action scenes might've been a little sharper, “Wonder Woman” still features a stunning sequence that immediately down in superhero cinema history. You probably already know which moment I'm referring to. Diana climbs out of a trench, strips off her overcoat, revealing the iconic armor for the first time, and marches across the No Man's Land with ease. It's not just a beautifully assembled sequence, thrilling and powerful, but also gets at the root of the superhero fantasy. Wonder Woman steps onto the battlefield and single-handedly changes the course of history. She dispels the historical villain, saves the lives of innocent, and looks powerful and unstoppable the entire time. This is why we watch movies like this.

As much as “Wonder Woman” does right, Jenkins' films still can't overcome the growing pains of a superhero franchise launcher. In its last third, “Wonder Woman” largely falls apart. The real villain reveals himself, dumping a load of unconvincing exposition on us. A final fight that is heavy on CGI lightning and inexplicable telekinesis ensues. While the film does the best it can to overcome the awkwardness, it still seems like Wonder Woman saves the day thanks to a random new power revealing itself, not so much because of her own strength. This climax is weak enough that it squanders the emotion in Trevor's sacrifice, which really should have worked. (There's also the brain-splintering choice of Wonder Woman allowing a German poison specialist to escape... It's a good thing the Germans never did anything else bad with poison gas, isn't it?)

While it's clearly Gadot and Trevor's show, “Wonder Woman” has a pretty strong supporting cast too. Robin Wright is fittingly concerned but noble as Hippolyta. Connie Nielson steals many of the scenes she's in, as Antiope, Wonder Woman's trainer. Nielson is so convincingly tough and determined, that it's a shame she exits the film as early as she does. Lucy Davis is in the tough position of being the film's wacky comic relief, in the form of Wonder Woman's longtime sidekick Etta Candy. Luckily, Davis is an appealing comedic presence and saves what could've been an annoying character. David Thewlis has the right balance of gravitas and conceited wickedness as the film's final villain, even if he's awkwardly subbed out for a CGI creation for most of his big moments. He's also largely overshadowed by Danny Huston, gleefully over-the-top as the primary villain for most of the runtime.

Since it's a big budget superhero movie, “Wonder Woman” also looks pretty great. The sets on Themyscira look fantastic, especially the ornate shrine that contains the Godkiller sword. One can't really undersell how important it is that a superhero movie get the main character's look right. It would've been easy to screw up Wonder Woman's iconic outfit when translating it to the big screen. Luckily, the movie nailed it. All the iconic elements are there – the tiara, the skirt, the patriotic color scheme, the eagle-like breast-plate and W-shaped belt – but rendered in a way that looks plausible and realistic. She looks like Wonder Woman but also looks like she can exist in real life, a delicate balance to pull off.

Compared to the rest of the DC Extended Universe films up to that point, “Wonder Woman” truly felt like a breath of fresh air. It was neither relentlessly grim and pretentious nor senselessly plotted and assembled by committee. It was fun and funny but not needlessly flippant. The cast was great and the story strong enough to support the things the film needed to do. Most importantly, the movie understood and grasp the details of what makes Wonder Woman an important character. While the film certainly faced some controversy, especially from folks who worry about whether these sort of things are either too or not feminist enough, Jenkins, in many ways, made the “Wonder Woman” movie that we most needed. Without revolutionizing the superhero genre, it proves to be a more-than-satisfying entry and a damn good debut for an iconic character. [Grade: B+]

We all know how this Director Report Card was originally suppose to end. As initially intended, I should've been wrapping things up with “Wonder Woman 1984,” the highly anticipated and very neat looking sequel to Jenkins' superhero stunner. Instead, ya know, the apocalypse began. While still dated for a October release date at this moment, it's looking increasingly likely to me that movie theaters will not be reopening anytime soon. So who the hell knows when we'll get to see 'Wonder Woman 1984.”

As it stands now, Patty Jenkins is a pretty interesting talent. Though her output is still brief enough that patterns and themes are only beginning to emerge, it is interesting that she's maintained a consistent vision despite the wild differences between her three features thus far. And now that she's a big shot blockbuster director, I'm sure we'll be seeing more films from her in the near future. I look forward to them.