#’THIS IS SO UNNECESSARY SOMEONE INVESTIGATE THE DIRECTOR WHY DID THEY DEPICT THIS���

[antxnous]

ok I’m complaining abt some heavy shit in the tags cw and tw ahead and stuff but I am actually abt to crash out in class rn

[biofunmy]

Clint Eastwood’s ‘Richard Jewell’ Is at the Center of a Media Storm

ATLANTA — Clint Eastwood received a standing ovation on Tuesday when he was introduced by the Georgia House speaker, David Ralston, for the red-carpet premiere of “Richard Jewell” at the Rialto Center for the Arts in downtown Atlanta. The audience broke into applause again at the climax of the fact-based film Mr. Eastwood directed about the security guard who was suspected by the F.B.I. of planting a bomb at the 1996 Summer Olympic Games.

The reaction was a contrast to how the film was received Wednesday at a screening arranged by Cox Enterprises, the owner of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, at a theater near the newspaper’s headquarters. During a scene in which a Journal-Constitution reporter is shown offering sex to an F.B.I. agent in exchange for information — a scene the paper has called “false and defamatory” — an audience member hissed.

The film shows Kathy Scruggs, a law enforcement reporter, sidling up to the F.B.I. agent at a bar days after a pipe bomb packed with nails had exploded at Centennial Olympic Park in the city’s downtown area, causing two deaths and injuring 111 people. “Give me something I can print,” says Ms. Scruggs, who is played by Olivia Wilde.

The agent is played by Jon Hamm. Using crude language, he implies that he would not give her the name of the leading suspect in the bombing even if she were to have sex with him. After the reporter’s hand climbs up his thigh, he relents, saying the F.B.I. was looking into Mr. Jewell, a man who had been hailed as a hero in news reports for his discovery of the bomb, a heads-up move that led to the clearing of the park, greatly limiting casualties.

The movie, which is being released on Friday, depicts the reporter as grateful for this piece of information. “Want to get a room, or just go to my car?” she asks.

In most respects, “Richard Jewell,” based on a 1997 Vanity Fair article, “American Nightmare,” and a recently published nonfiction book, “The Suspect,” is faithful to the events it describes. But the scene in which Ms. Scruggs, who died in 2001 at age 42, trades sex for a scoop did not appear in either the article, by Marie Brenner, or the book, written by Kent Alexander, the United States attorney in Atlanta at the time of the bombing, and Kevin Salwen, a journalist who was based in Atlanta for The Wall Street Journal.

As the movie shows, Mr. Jewell was indeed a suspect, and The Journal-Constitution reported that fact in a front-page article. After a CNN anchor read the story aloud on the air, other networks and newspapers joined the media herd. The suspect, who was never charged, spent his days holed up in his apartment as reporters staked him out, an ordeal that ended only when he was exonerated three months after the bombing.

In 2005, Eric Robert Rudolph, a serial bomber, confessed to the crime. Mr. Jewell died in 2007, a symbol for those who have faced trial by media during the 24-hour news cycles that came about when cable television was on the rise, a syndrome that prefigured the rushes to judgment of the social media era.

Tom Johnson, who was the president of CNN at the time of the bombing, said the news media’s handling of the story was regrettable.

“We were almost saying that he was guilty,” he said in an interview. “Nobody wrote that, but the unbelievable amount of coverage that was being given to Richard Jewell and the way in which all of us were trying to investigate it and report on it — it was incredibly complex, but it was unsettling.”

(The New York Times played down Mr. Jewell’s status as a suspect at the time in an article that focused on the media reaction, cautioning that there was not enough evidence to charge him.)

Mr. Eastwood’s film, written by the veteran screenwriter Billy Ray, follows the standard practice for movies based on real-life events by taking liberties with certain facts to speed the story along. But it uses Ms. Scruggs’s real name while giving a new one to the F.B.I. agent, raising the question of whether the filmmakers risked damaging the reporter’s reputation in their efforts to convey how Mr. Jewell lost his.

This week, The Journal-Constitution sent a letter to Warner Bros. and the filmmakers, hinting at legal action for what it characterized as a defamatory depiction of Ms. Scruggs and an incomplete portrayal of how the paper arrived at the article naming Mr. Jewell as a suspect.

“For a film that purports to be about the besmirching of someone’s reputation to proceed to smear Ms. Scruggs and the paper she reported for in this manner is highly offensive,” said the letter, which was also signed by Cox Enterprises, the owner of the newspaper and one of the country’s largest cable companies. Cox hired the litigator Martin D. Singer, known for his work on behalf of celebrities like Charlie Sheen and Bill Cosby, to represent the paper.

Warner Bros. fired back with a statement that said, “It is unfortunate and the ultimate irony that The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, having been a part of the rush to judgment of Richard Jewell, is now trying to malign our filmmakers and cast.”

Weeks before the film’s release, The Journal-Constitution published an article headlined “The Ballad of Kathy Scruggs.” It described a “hard-charging” police reporter who used “salty language,” wore “short skirts” and did not leave crime scenes “until her notebook was full.” The article also said the film version of Ms. Scruggs “veers from reality, according to people who knew and worked with her, in suggesting she landed scoops by offering to sleep with sources.”

The film’s bar scene has turned a cinematic examination of privacy, due process and the excesses of the news media into a target for critics who have called it the latest example of Hollywood’s sexist take on women in journalism. The trope of female reporters sleeping with sources or story subjects has appeared in the HBO limited series “Sharp Objects,” the Netflix show “House of Cards” and the movie “Thank You for Smoking,” among other productions.

Kelly McBride, a onetime police reporter who is the senior vice president of the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit organization that supports journalism, said the portrayal of Ms. Scruggs did not reflect reality.

“It is so exceedingly rare,” she said. “And yet this male-dominated world of Hollywood needs to cast female reporters as subject to the whims of nature.”

“I think Clint Eastwood is showing his age, frankly,” she added of the 89-year-old director.

Critics have noted that a film focused on a low point for law enforcement and the press was directed by a prominent conservative at a time when President Trump has vilified the F.B.I. as an arm of the so-called deep state and has repeatedly called the news media “the enemy of the people.”

In the Vanity Fair article, Ms. Brenner wrote that an unnamed staff member at The Journal-Constitution referred to Ms. Scruggs as a “police groupie.” But the article did not report that she had used sex to learn that Mr. Jewell was a suspect.

Ms. Scruggs shared a byline for the July 1996 article naming Mr. Jewell as a suspect with Ron Martz. In an interview, Mr. Martz, who spent 26 years at the paper before leaving in 2007, said that he had not been contacted by anybody working on the film and that its portrayal of his colleague was false.

“She could be flirtatious, but she wouldn’t have done that sort of thing, because she was very conscious of her role as a reporter and she wanted to be known as a top-notch reporter,” he said.

He added, “That sort of portrayal of her, it’s an insult not only to her, but to just about any other woman who’s been a reporter.”

At an awards-campaign talk in Los Angeles last month, the film’s screenwriter, Mr. Ray, said he had spoken with people involved in the case. “I will stand behind every word of the script,” he added.

Mr. Alexander and Mr. Salwen, the authors of the book that served as source material, met with Mr. Eastwood over the summer.

“We realized we had the same motivation,” Mr. Salwen said. “This is the story of a man who should have a statue for the lives he saved, but, instead, this unsung hero is misunderstood.”

The book refers to Ms. Scruggs’s “reputation” for sleeping with sources but reports that she got the tip about Mr. Jewell from someone in law enforcement before having it confirmed by the F.B.I. agent. In a statement, the authors said: “We have been asked repeatedly whether we found evidence that Scruggs traded sex for the story. We did not.” They declined to discuss their input on the bar scene.

After the screening held for Journal-Constitution staff members on Wednesday, Ken Foskett, an investigations editor at the paper, interrogated the authors of “The Suspect” in a question-and-answer session. The film is fair in its treatment of Mr. Jewell, Mr. Foskett said, but not Ms. Scruggs.

“Why are the liberties taken with her?” he asked. “That’s my question. And why is that defensible?”

“I will leave that to Warner Bros.,” Mr. Salwen said.

The discussion also went into the question of whether the newspaper had been right, in the weeks after the bombing, to report that Mr. Jewell was the leading suspect and to describe him as someone who “fits the profile of the lone bomber.” (A libel lawsuit filed against the newspaper was dismissed in 2007.)

“I think it’s worth addressing the broader criticism, regardless of what the movie got right or wrong,” Meris Lutz, a reporter at the paper, said. Of the bar scene, she added: “It felt so unnecessary. If they had cut that, I don’t think it would have affected the movie at all.”

Brooks Barnes contributed reporting from Los Angeles.

Sahred From Source link Business

from WordPress http://bit.ly/35iDoB9 via IFTTT

[odanurr87]

My thoughts on... Wonder Woman

I had been looking forward to this movie quite a bit ever since I saw Gal Gadot’s portrayal of the Amazon Warrior in Batman v Superman. DC has had a rocky start with their superhero cinematic universe and I don’t think it’s unfair to say they’re playing catch up with MARVEL. Indeed, that is the reason why their second offering already pitted the Man of Steel against the Dark Knight, drawing upon Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns to create one convoluted, if action-packed, mess of a story. However, despite the movie’s many flaws, I think most people would agree that Wonder Woman’s introduction in Batman v Superman, while unnecessary to a certain extent, helped elevate the film and made people eager for more.

Sadly, I didn’t know a whole lot about her character at the time of BvS, something I rectified in the coming months by reading up on a few of her comics. Based on a recommendation, I started out with Brian Azzarello’s New 52 take on Wonder Woman. It seemed like as good a place as any to start so I dug in. For better or worse, the New 52′s take on Wonder Woman was a bit grim, reminiscent of Zack Snyder’s approach to the DCEU, and centered around an already experienced and weary Wonder Woman rather than retell her classical origin story. It still managed to entertain me and pulled some very interesting twists, focusing more on the strife between the Greek Gods and Diana’s role in that conflict.

My second encounter with Wonder Woman was more due to chance than thorough researching. I do recall searching for a modern retelling of her classical origin story and eventually stumbled upon a digital series called The Legend of Wonder Woman by Renae De Liz. Everything about the series spoke to me, from the vibrant and colorful artwork to the story about Diana’s younger days living in Themyscira, how she came across an American WWII pilot named Steve Trevor, and how that encounter set her on the path to becoming Wonder Woman. I loved everything about this story and I direct you to my Goodreads review for a more detailed breakdown.

Like all Golden Age heroes, Wonder Woman has gone through multiple evolutions.

So enthused was I by Wonder Woman’s story that I decided to go further back in time, all the way back to the 1940s, when William Moulton Marston first introduced the character to the world. I had only just finished reading the excellent compilation The Flash: A Celebration of 75 Years, so I decided to do the same for Wonder Woman. Unfortunately, I was less than thrilled by what I found. Wonder Woman’s earlier stories alternated between the dumb and the ridiculous, and the depiction of characters like Steve Trevor, Etta Candy, and Wonder Woman herself, left a lot to be desired of. Steve Trevor was an idiot, Etta Candy reminded me of the fat kid archetype of the 90s, and Diana had a rather bland personality. Of course, I’m looking at these stories from a different perspective than that at the time they were written. Indeed, Wonder Woman comics sold pretty well into the 50s and 60s, but as readership declined it was decided that a makeover was overdue. As a result, the early 70s saw Diana lose her powers and costume, instead becoming a private investigator and a fashion store owner who fought evil doers with kung fu. It wasn’t long however, before she was reinstated into the Justice League in her role as Wonder Woman. After Crisis on Infinite Earths reshaped DC’s continuity in 1985, George Pérez rebooted the character, reinforcing her link to the Greek Gods.

And this is where I’ll stop with the comics seeing as I still have to read George Pérez’s complete run of Wonder Woman. Instead, let me last draw your attention to the 2009 animated Wonder Woman movie, directed by Lauren Montgomery (who you might know from her work in The Legend of Korra and Voltron: Legendary Defender), and starring Keri Russell as Wonder Woman and Nathan Fillion as Steve Trevor. It has been said that for all that DC has gotten wrong with the Cinematic Universe, they’ve done a pretty neat job with their Animated Universe, and the 2009 movie is a perfect example of this. While not without flaws, Wonder Woman returns to the origin story but set in modern times, and has our titular heroine fighting against none other than Ares, God of War, in an impressive showdown that pits the Amazons against Ares’ minions. Nathan Fillion as Steve Trevor plays the part of the charming rogue who introduces Diana to Man’s world while Keri Russell’s Wonder Woman is a stoic character, initially distrustful of men and their evil ways.

This Wonder Woman is not afraid to throw a punch... or several.

With a variety of interpretations throughout its 75-year history, DC had its work cut out for them to deliver a strong origin story for one of comics’ most powerful female superheroes. To further add to the pressure, it would be Wonder Woman’s first time on the big screen (Lynda Carter previously played her on TV from 1975 to 1979), not to mention it would be the first female-led superhero movie in the DCEU, finally breaching new ground that MARVEL has yet to tread with their own cinematic franchise. 

Perchance to distance itself from MARVEL’s Captain America, Wonder Woman takes place during World War I and successfully combines elements from previous stories to tell a compelling origin story for the Amazon Princess. The movie’s first act draws, to my mind, heavily from Renae De Liz’s The Legend of Wonder Woman as we explore Diana’s younger days on Themyscira as a troublesome rascal who yearns to become a powerful warrior like the rest of the Amazons. The movie spends a deserved half hour to forty minutes fleshing out this colorful world and weaving it into Greek mythology, giving us a small glimpse into the creation of the Amazons and Hippolyta’s and Antiope’s warrior days. This scene was so well-executed that I wouldn’t mind a prequel story, with Connie Nielsen and Robin Wright naturally reprising their roles as Hippolyta and Antiope respectively. Their performances were always on point; Hippolyta tried to protect Diana by sheltering her while her sister, Antiope, did likewise by teaching her to defend herself. A small departure from The Legend of Wonder Woman where it is Philippus, not Antiope, who trains Diana, but a welcome one nonetheless. Props also to Lilly Aspell who played the part of young Diana wonderfully (pun not intended).

Hippolyta and Antiope are strong role models for Diana.

Eventually, of course, Chris Pine’s Steve Trevor makes his fateful appearance what puts the Amazons in a bit of a bind. This scene develops along the same lines as the 2009 animated movie, and the Amazons use the lasso of truth on him to compel him to talk, forcing him to reveal his nature as a spy and enlightening the Amazons on the fact that a “war to end all wars” has submerged the world in chaos. Without spoiling much (there’ll be time for that later), Diana assumes this world war is the doing of Ares, God of War, and resolves to accompany Steve to the front lines to kill Ares and put an end to the war. One of the strengths, and at the same time weaknesses, of Wonder Woman is precisely how it toys with the notion that maybe humans don’t need a God of War to goad them into battle, and that their world, and nature, is perhaps more complex than Diana is willing to admit. Understandably, Diana is initially very naive and sees the world through a child’s eyes, firmly believing that man is, at its core, kind-hearted, and that only through the corruption of someone like Ares they could turn so cruel and wage such ruthless war on each other.

Throughout the film Diana struggles to understand this new world she has stepped into, and is eased into it largely through the character of Steve Trevor, and to a smaller degree through his Captain America-like squad and his secretary, Etta Candy. These supporting characters are obviously overshadowed by the leads Diana and Steve, much like Captain America overshadowed his team, but I felt they were serviceable. From time to time these characters interact with Diana, improving her understanding of man’s world in organic, natural, ways, never overdone to the point their conversations rang false. In fact, and unlike Suicide Squad where exposition is shot to the viewer left and right, Wonder Woman takes a more subtle approach and often leaves it up to the viewer’s imagination to piece together what personal wars the characters may be fighting through.

Hats off to a great performance by Chris Pine and Gal Gadot.

As good as the supporting cast might be though, they don’t hold a candle to Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman and Chris Pine’s Steve Trevor. Their story and relationship is at the heart and soul of the film and their starting points couldn’t be more opposite. Like I said before, Diana sees everything through a child’s eyes and feels compelled to help whenever she sees pain and suffering. Steve however, hardened by the reality of war, understands that you cannot save everyone and often butts heads with Diana over this. This eventually leads to the epic No Man’s Land scene that is making the rounds, where Diana comes into her own as Wonder Woman, proving to Steve that sometimes the impossible can be made possible. Fun fact, this scene almost didn’t make the cut as Warner Bros. and some of the film’s creative team members couldn’t understand its significance. It wasn’t until Director Patty Jenkins storyboarded the sequence herself that she was able to sell it.

Having mentioned No Man’s Land, I would be remiss if I didn’t bring up the soundtrack of the movie. Rupert Gregson-Williams composes a wonderful soundtrack truly deserving of the word “epic” and well-worth listening to on its own. This isn’t often the case with movies, featuring perhaps a single great theme to the detriment of the rest of the soundtrack. I now get goosebumps re-listening to the “No Man’s Land” track, knowing exactly what transpires, and I can’t help but be amazed by how perfectly the music fits the scene. Music has the incredible power to speak to our heart, appeal to our feelings and emotions, and thus elevate a movie beyond what we can see and hear, and that is precisely what Rupert Gregson-Williams does with Wonder Woman’s soundtrack. The music is so good that I’d be hard-pressed to pick favourites, even though certain tracks resonate more with me because of how and when they’re used in the film. A few of these include, “Pain, Loss and Love,” “No Man’s Land,” “We Are All to Blame,” and “Lightning Strikes.” If you have some time to spare, I encourage you to listen to the soundtrack and, to that effect, I leave you with “No Man’s Land.”

Returning to our leads, for all his hardened exterior, Chris Pine’s character ultimately represents the best aspects of humanity, something Diana holds onto throughout the movie, even in her darkest moments when she wonders whether humanity is really worth saving after seeing so much death, misery, and suffering. Their characters don’t always see eye to eye, but they respect each other and their strengths, bringing out the best in one another. Both actors embraced their characters so fully that their interactions were always a pleasure to watch, regardless of the subject matter. Fortunately, the dialogue was always up to par and it never overstayed its welcome. For a film with such incredible action sequences, I must admit some of Wonder Woman’s best moments are the calmer, more subdued, ones.

About the action, both slow motion and CGI are indeed noticeable during certain action sequences, particularly towards the end as Diana unleashes the full extent of her powers, but I didn’t mind because they were so well choreographed, living up to Wonder Woman’s reputation. Seeing her expertly wield the lasso of truth in battle, as if she had been born with it, was far more rewarding than her sequences with the blade.

Another potential pitfall for the movie could have been how it switches aesthetics, turning to a darker, more somber, color palette when the movie transitions to man’s world. Personally, this is the one instance where such a transition is not only justified but also makes sense, marking a stark contrast between paradisaical Themyscira and the gloom of a world at war. Indeed, with Wonder Woman victorious at the end of the film, color returns, if only for a brief moment.

Sadly, villains don’t break the mold in Wonder Woman.

As far as the villains go, I feel that they at least fared better than previous DC movies, although that is not saying much. General Ludendorff and Dr. Poison are not particularly fleshed out characters but, in view of the larger plot, perhaps they needn’t be. Certainly, we get to hear Ludendorff’s rationalization on why he’s eager to prolong the war but Dr. Poison isn’t afforded the same luxury, comfortably settling in her role as henchwoman. At the very least there is one perversely funny scene that adds to the insane personality of their characters, even if it did follow a rather trite and predictable one.

Ultimately, I have little doubt that Wonder Woman is DC’s best movie to date and then some. While it does echo Captain America at times, Wonder Woman’s story is less about fighting the evil Germans, and more about recognizing the darkness within oneself as well as the light. It is the story of Diana coming to terms with the world around her and making that fateful choice between rising up to defend it, or leaving it to consume itself into oblivion. The execution is not flawless, something I’ll address in the spoilers section, and opens the door to a couple of interesting questions, but it is nonetheless a delightful ride throughout that takes the best elements of Wonder Woman’s mythology and combines them into a tale worthy of the Amazon Princess.

SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT

When Steve Trevor reaches Themyscira and warns the Amazons about a World War, Diana immediately makes the connection that Ares must be the one behind it. According to the movie’s mythology, Ares is that last remaining Greek God, following an ancient battle where he killed his brethren. However, in his last battle with Zeus, he was gravely wounded and forced to retreat. Knowing Ares would eventually return, Zeus purportedly entrusted the Amazons with an incredibly powerful weapon known as the God Killer, the blade shown in the trailers that Wonder Woman eventually wields. Naturally, by that point, and given how worked up her mother and aunt both were about Diana’s destiny, I had already figured out that the real God Killer was Diana herself. Why? Because she was not made out of clay as her mother had told her, but was instead the result of a union between Zeus and Hippolyta, following Azzarello’s New 52 take on Diana’s origin story. As such, Diana can wield the power of a God as she proves during her final showdown with Ares. It is a good twist, even if it lacked punch in the movie.

It is during the third act of the movie that this is revealed, and it is also during the third act that some of the more obvious weaknesses of the film start to show. Throughout the movie, Diana was convinced that if she killed Ares, who she then thought to be General Ludendorff, the war would stop, and the darkness in men’s hearts would be suddenly lifted. She’s so passionate over this, nearing the point of obession, that she bolts on Trevor and his comrades to single-handedly pursue and kill Ludendorff. She eventually does... and nothing changes. The wheels of war continue to spin, puzzling our hero and making her wonder whether Steve may have been right all along and that war cannot be stopped by the death of any one man, however powerful. This would have been an interesting crossroads for our heroine, with the God Killer being nothing more than a red herring. So overwhelmed is Diana by the notion that men might have darkness within themselves, that not even Steve’s impassionate speech and plea about overcoming that darkness and doing the right thing is able to move her. At this point, Diana has practically given up on mankind but Steve, being the good guy that he is, is determined to see this through to the end, even if it leads to his death.

In retrospect, this setup would’ve made for a very compeling third act. Imagine, if you will, Steve and his squadmates pinned down by the German forces, overwhelmed and close to being overrun. In fact, we could remain relatively faithful to the movie, and have Steve boarding the plane to blow it up while his squadmates make a desperate last stand to buy him time. It is then that Diana realizes that even amidst all this darkness, Steve and his men are still willing to lay down their lives to give this world a chance. Despite their many failings, they are being selfless, prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. How can that fail to stir the Amazon’s heart and have her come to their aid? She would honor Steve’s sacrifice, save his men, and do her utmost to bring the light to this world. Perhaps the war won’t stop right then and there, but Wonder Woman would keep fighting for us all. Pretty neat, huh?

For better or worse, shortly after Ludendorff’s death, the movie does introduce the real Ares as the architect of the world war. To my mind, this was a mistake as, instead of having Diana struggle with the realization that war isn’t the doing of a single man, she falls back on her original mission to kill Ares. War was, after all, the doing of a single man, she just got the man wrong. At this point, the movie tries to suggest that, while Ares may have indeed nudged mankind to the point of war by providing new recipes of destruction, it is ultimately up to mankind to decide whether to use them or not. Ares can’t choose for mankind, and what they have chosen makes them unworthy of being saved by the Gods. It would have been an interesting point to consider, certainly, but two things happen that undermine this.

The first is Ares suggesting that there’s not a single shred of goodness in humanity and outright mocking Steve Trevor as an example of this. This is patently false as Trevor represents the best of humanity and Ares should probably know this. A better approach would have been to suggest that even when a bright light like Trevor rises up to fight back it is quickly snuffed out by the darkness that surrounds him. That would have been a more powerful argument to sway Diana to his side but, alas, Ares chooses to be a dick about it and pays the price.

This is what you get for being a dick.

The second event to undermine Ares’ argument is the ending itself. Once Diana defeats Ares, we see the German troops take off their masks and breathe a sigh of relief. They look happy, and no longer see Trevor’s squad as their enemies. To further add to this, the film immediately cuts to the victory celebration at Trafalgar Square. All of this reinforces the notion that, yes, Ares was indeed the single architect behind the world war, and once the world was free from his presence, the darkness inside all men was instantly lifted. This completely undermines the film’s message that we all have darkness and light within us but that it is our choices that define which side comes out on top. Diana herself acknowledges, right at the very end of the film, this duality present in mankind and suggests that it is love what will ultimately save the world, just like her love of Steve Trevor gave her the strength she needed to overcome and defeat Ares.

I give the movie props for at least trying to tackle this subject, but the third act clearly fumbles and muddles the message. It wrestles with the superhero movie legacy of facing and defeating the big villain at the end while trying to suggest there is no such big villain.

Another, smaller, issue I have with the third act concerns the scene where Steve says goodbye to Diana. Steve has already made up his mind about taking the plane to the skies and blowing it up but he manages to catch up with Diana for a last farewell. However, Diana was deafened by a recent explosion and doesn’t understand what Steve is saying. Steve eventually departs but leaves something with her, his father’s watch, something Diana knows he would never go anywhere without what can only mean one thing. This scene is a perfect example of how much you can say in a scene without uttering a single word of dialogue and I absolutely loved it. Which is why I didn’t like it one bit when the scene is revisited moments later in a flashback where we get to hear what both characters said. This was utterly unnecessary and somewhat undermines the impact of the earlier, silent, scene. There is no need to hear their words; Steve’s final act of leaving his father’s watch with her is all Diana needs to understand he’s saying farewell. This is the one time when the movie can’t help itself, needlessly re-writing an otherwise pefect scene.

The ending of the movie also raises several questions about Wonder Woman’s role after World War I. If she was so determined to defend mankind after the events of the Great War, where was she during World War II (a war that arguable did have a chief architect), Korea, or Vietnam? I would have to assume she didn’t take part in those wars or Lex would have found far more evidence than a single, obscure, picture taken in 1918. In fact, had she being more active in her role as Wonder Woman after the 1920s, odds are the world would have already known about her by the time Superman made his debut (further justifying the choice of World War I as the setting for Diana’s origin story). Where was she then? What was she doing? Why did she give up fighting until Batman v Superman? These are questions one cannot help asking but Wonder Woman provides no answers. Hopefully, Bruce will get to ask her these questions in Justice League but I’m not holding my breath.

At the end of the day, despite a weaker third act than the two preceding it, Wonder Woman is one of the best superhero movies to be found in both MARVEL and DC to date. Ironically, Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman perfectly embodies the strength, hope, and innocent, kind-hearted, nature of Christopher Reeve’s Superman, far better than Henry Cavill’s Man of Steel. Director Patty Jenkins has done a truly remarkable job delivering the first great female-led superhero movie and bringing DC back from the brink in the process. DC’s future looks a little brighter now, and they have the Amazon Princess to thank for that.