With the release of Wonder Woman upon us, Podcast Producer Thom Hetherington looks at the way we watch and respond to films today.

There has been a tectonic shift in the way we watch movies. And I’m not talking about the rise of 3D, the age of IMAX or even those godawful vibrating chairs that spray you with disturbing smells and jets of water. I’m talking about you. When did you get so cynical?

Audiences seem increasingly reluctant to engage with films, often before they’ve even seen them. The desire to enjoy is being trumped by the desire to get one’s money’s worth. Suspension of disbelief seems to be supremely lacking in modern cinema audiences and it’s a crying shame. The more time I spend at the pictures the more I find more that people are laughing not with films, but at them.

Indeed, cynical film watching has become a kind of cottage industry in recent years. Showings of Tommy Wiseau’s The Room regularly sell out across the globe, often frequented by the director himself. People gather not to watch the film, but to point and laugh at it. And whilst this isn’t a problem in of itself, certainly not given it has Wiseau’s full participation, it does point to a wider problem. These screenings are part of a world of YouTube videos that surgically dissect a film’s plot piece by piece, TV shows centred around mocking continuity mistakes and entire blogs and social media channels specifically targeted at strategically shit-bombing the work of numerous filmmakers, actors and writers. Namely that there seems to be an increasing desire for failure on the part of the cinema going public.

Nothing seems to delight people more than when a film bombs at the box office. When Shia LaBeouf’s recent thriller Man Down failed to sell more than one ticket in its UK opening weekend, everyone lined up to have a giggle. But at what? As Simon Brew, editor of Den of Geek, pointed out on Twitter; ‘a small distributor took a chance on a half-decent movie, and we’ll now sneer at them for trying.’ We know full well, given the box office receipts, that the dissenters hadn’t bothered to watch the film in question. The same is true of recent ‘flops’ such as Live By Night (our review), John Carter, Jupiter Ascending and Tomorrowland (a film all about cynicism bowing to wonder) and countless others. I am, admittedly, an outspoken defender of all of these films but this is partly because, and here’s the rub: they swing for the fences. And, yes, their batting average may look a bit skewed from afar but so what? When did it become so delightful to heap scorn upon derision instead of stepping back and admiring a bold creative choice and direction? To heave up a bitter cackle before stopping to think? Jupiter Ascending, for example, features a fascinating exploration of class and exploitation whilst also being incredibly beautiful and featuring Sean Bean as a half Bee man. Yes, it’s a bit silly sometimes, but it doesn’t take itself as seriously as half its critics seem to do. If people stopped laughing at its Rotten Tomatoes score and actually watched it, they might be pleasantly surprised. There are an alarming number of people who seem to be baying for cinematic blood to gorge themselves on. And it isn’t particularly pleasant.

This is reflected, too, in the number of people who seem to delight is smugly pointing out the similarities in plot between the original Star Wars and Star Wars: The Force Awakens. They are, of course, being wilfully stupid in ignoring the fact that the storytelling in these two films is entirely different. The characters, and the way that they interact with each other, in Abrams’ film are vastly different way to Lucas’ original creations. The same is true of the super intellectuals who point out the kinship of Avatar and Dances With Wolves, who seem to be vitally missing the point that one of these films is a groundbreaking piece of visually breathtaking cinema that is, crucially, set in space. If viewers can’t lose themselves in the visual majesty of a world where a six foot blue Sigourney Weaver lives, then there’s something wrong. Whilst this may all be a snag for certain viewers, it shouldn’t ruin their enjoyment entirely. Movie watching is an emotional, escapist, experience and it shouldn’t be hampered by a fixation with plot. 2001: A Space Odyssey, Stand By Me and Clerks barely have a plot between them, but we’re all happy to accept them as masterpieces in their own right. If you want to get stuffy about plot, then you will, I assure you, be much happier staying at home reading summaries on Wikipedia.

There are, of course, many contributing factors. A night out at the cinema is no longer a cheap affair, if you want to go all in with snacks and drinks then it can very quickly become more expensive than a trip to the theatre. The temptation to write a film off as absolute baloney purely from a trailer makes sense, particularly if you want to save money. And a quick glance at Rotten Tomatoes can be misleading too; there might be a five star review from someone whose opinion you deeply value, but you won’t find it by quickly glancing at the ‘fresh’ percentage. Financially too, it makes sense to laugh at a film rather than with it once you’re in the cinema watching it; at least then you’re getting some fun for your money. But as the world increasingly becomes a cynical place, shouldn’t we be trying to escape in the cinema? Or learn something? Not guffaw because we think we’re more intelligent than the filmmakers?

However you, gentle reader, cannot be entirely to blame in this large and complicated game of self-righteous finger pointing that I’m playing. It’s hard not to feel that audiences are merely becoming savvy to the rising cynicism of the film studios. It’s not uncommon now to get five sequels announced to a film that hasn’t even been released yet and cinematic universes seem to be popping up left, right and centre like dandelions, just begging to be uprooted by schadenfreude. Even within the movies themselves, we’ve seen Captain America fighting against the United States instead of for them, and Batman repeatedly smashing a bathroom sink into Superman’s face. Cynicism, it seems, is all around.

But for all this loathsome negativity and impending misery there does seem to be a turn in the tide. Most notably the recent Wonder Woman (our review), for example, feels alarmingly retro in its protagonist’s heroics; Wonder Woman fights for a cause as much as she fights against an enemy. It feels like a direct response to the cynicism in and surrounding the underrated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Wonder Woman is a film all about the power of love in a world that’s seriously lacking it, it’s about a humanity that needs saving not from sky portals or inter-dimensional beasties but from itself. It’s sad that it seems to be so timely. But perhaps we could take a lesson from it as viewers, to find the good in films, to will for something beautiful, not something that we’re more coldly intelligent than. George Carlin once observed that “inside every cynical person is a disappointed idealist”, it’s time we each dug them up. It’s better to walk out a cinema disappointed than walk in bitter. Call me schmaltzy, but to escape into the warmth of wonder seems far more inviting than to sit and nitpick. I dare you to suspend your disbelief. After all, once those nits are picked, they’re only going to end up biting you.

Hebe Hamilton reviews Patty Jenkins’ long-awaited big-screen take on the most celebrated female superhero.

WARNING: This review contains minor spoilers.

In the latest offering from the DC Extended Universe, the Ancient Greek myths meet World War I and Gal Gadot’s Diana of Themyscira realises her destiny as the eponymous heroine…

The DC movie universe has been in desperate need of a change of supervision after last year’s disappointing offerings of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Suicide Squad. Recent films have boasted high levels of CGI-induced battle sequences with little, if any, plot at all. Would Wonder Woman suffer the same fate? After all, it has taken years of frustrated efforts to get the all-clear for a standalone Wonder Woman movie. Step forward director Patty Jenkins, and the results so far have been more than promising. The film has a 93% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes so far, from nearly 200 reviews, making it safe to assume that Jenkins and her crew are taking the franchise in the right direction compared to its predecessors.

The film starts off in a style very similar to Marvel’s Thor. We are introduced to Diana’s (Gal Gadot) home world of Themyscira, a Grecian paradise hidden from the rest of the human world and home to the Amazons, warrior women of the Ancient Greek legends. Diana’s mother, Queen Hippolyta (played effortlessly by Connie Nielsen), introduces a tale of Ares’ (the God of War) destructive influence on the human race, foreshadowing Diana’s destiny. Cue the arrival of Steve Trevor (played by classic leading man Chris Pine), and the chain of events by which Diana leaves the safety of Themyscira to aid Steve and his comrades on the Western Front of the First World War, and face Ares himself…

The film certainly has its strengths. The costumes and special effects are delightful, and special mention must go to the epic battle scenes; CGI here gives us an impressive interpretation of the Western Front battlefield and Diana’s super-human abilities, and manages not to feel coarse or overdone. Similarly, the effects used to create Themyscira, combined with real life footage from Palinuro and Camerota in southern Italy, make for a beautiful setting for Diana’s home world, and a perfect contrast to the darkness and chaos shown on the battlefield.

As for the costumes, the outfits seen in the London scenes and the Western Front are accurate and believable interpretations of World War I and early 20th-century fashion, whilst Diana’s iconic red and blue attire (complete with the indestructible bracelets and boomerang tiara) is as iconic and exciting as promised. The eventual reveal, during a brilliantly-choreographed battle scene in No Man’s Land, is delivered at just the right turning point in the film, which is the highlight of Allan Heinberg’s script.

There is notable acting from Chris Pine, who plays a dynamic leading man, yet one that does not overshadow the focus on Gadot’s Diana. Nor is there an overblown love story involved to diminish their characterisations. Another significant performance is Robin Wright in a short-lived role as Diana’s aunt and mentor, General Antiope. Wright’s performance, alongside those of the other actresses portraying the Amazons, brings a refreshing stance to an otherwise male-dominated genre, as Antiope leads the Amazons in their training and wields weapons better than their male rivals are shown to be capable of. But then again, these are mythical female warriors facing mere humans, so what else could we expect?

Finally, stand-out comedic performances that deserve to be mentioned are Lucy Davis’ Etta Candy, and Ewen Bremner’s Charlie. Candy – Trevor’s assistant – provides a series of witty one-liners nearly every time she is onscreen, battlefield ally Charlie’s heavy drinking and wise-cracking ways provide much-needed comic relief during the heavier scenes.

Wonder Woman is not without its weaknesses. Not only is the World War setting too reminiscent to Marvel’s Captain America: The First Avenger, but Heinberg’s plot seems to lose track around the halfway point. In fact, prior to Diana’s epic reveal scene, the pace of the story almost feels like it is grinding to a halt, to the extent that it is easy to forget that the focus is ‘Wonder Woman’ at all. Similarly, the World War I setting seems out of touch with the attempts to combine it with a (highly modified) version of Greek Mythology. Despite being an ‘origins’ story, these attempts to combine the two are futile, although Heinberg certainly makes a valiant effort.

As for Gadot’s title character, who is never addressed as ‘Wonder Woman’ during the film, the actress breathes a lively and vivacious personality into the part. It doesn’t hurt that Gadot is visually ideal for the role, with her glossy dark hair and natural beauty. However, there were several instances where her acting was not quite believable, especially during the more emotional scenes, where her performance was wooden and did not convey the pain and loss she was supposed to be feeling.

Nevertheless, Patty Jenkins can be proud that her efforts have taken the DC universe down a more meaningful and, dare I say it, feminist path. No longer do these films need to rely on plots riddled with overly ambitious battle scenes in order to attempt to highlight the superheroes’ strengths. If anything, Wonder Woman raises questions about human nature. War is certainly shown to bring out the best and the worst in people during the film, and the plot manages to use a circular structure, featuring Diana in the present day looking at a picture of her team, to ponder upon the complexity of humanity and what it means to be human.

What Chris Pine’s Steve Trevor makes clear to Diana is that no one is all good, nor all bad, which dispels the shallow interpretation of former superhero films, with an ‘all good’ superhero facing off against an ‘all evil’ super villain. Instead, the nature of team work is addressed and its ability to give strength to the protagonists. Hopefully the example set by Wonder Woman will help the DC Extended Universe on its way to establishing a more sincere series of superhero themed movies. But, with the release of Justice League later this year, only time will tell.

7/10

Wonder Woman is out now in UK cinemas. See the final trailer below: