As Panzer points out, female super hero movies haven't done well in the past, but so far, this seems to be getting pretty good reviews:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wonder_woman_2017

I thought her entrance was one of the better scenes in Batman v Superman.

It will be interesting to see how it performs at the box office now.

Yeah, I've been noticing the great reception by the critics so far. Of course, praise from critics doesn't always translate to great box office performance but I have a good feeling that this film will be successful. I definitely plan on seeing it.

I edited my post to reference the box office performance while you were responding - sorry!

That was odd. Just a few months ago, a few early showing had it being bad-mouthed and destined for failure.

Go see the movie. Other than Nolans Dwrk Knight Trilogy, this is the best DC Universe Superhero movie to date. Way better than the Zach Snyders movies. Surprisingly funny as well.

Saw it, it was pretty good! Predictable, but what do you expect. A bit like Capt America, but then that was one of the best for Marvel.
It did have a pretty cheesy moment, up there with "Martha!". I wonder if there will be those complaining that Trevor shared the spotlight as the big hero?

As soon as I saw Gal Gadot playing the part in Batman v Superman.... SOLD

This film finally broke the curse of box office disaster for comic book films with a female lead character.

Or maybe they finally wrote and backed a good comic book movie for a female lead.
I'm not convinced they really tried before, counting on skin to sell the movie instead of making a good movie. I'm looking at you Catwoman...

Catwoman
Elektra
Ultraviolet
Ghost in the Shell
Supergirl

I think the producers and crew of all these films were really trying to make the best movie they could make. They all failed nonetheless.

I don't think they tried that hard with Catwoman or Elektra. However, Elektra was a lot better than DD.
Ghost in the Shell was good. Supergirl...yeah even for the time it wasn't good.
Ultraviolet wasn't a comic book movie was it? I actually liked that one.
Aeon Flux was a comic after the MTV animated shorts got popular I think. It wasn't terrible, but Charlize looked nothing like the part and certainly didn't dress the part.

The movie is good and deserves all the praise it is getting. This really has a feeling of an uplifting "hero", not someone conflicted or with a shady past.

However, DC falls for the same weakness of 90% of their movies - weak, boring bad guys. Who would have thought that a WWI could save the plot from a weak antagonist.

+1

Only the Nolan Batman films have had compelling villains.

If you think about it, Wonder Woman was a much tougher movie / story to adapt than other DC heroes. An Amazonian Demigod with an origin story in WW1. But they really made it work.

Gal Gadot was really good in the role. I thought she was good in Batman v Superman even though the movie was terrible. But i wasnt sure how good she will be when she has to carry the movie on her own. Turns out she is what made the movie so good.

Easily the best movie from the DC expanded universe. The tone is a little lighter and more Marvel-esque. Buts that not the main reason I enjoyed it. Nolans Trilogy was pretty dark and they were great. Its just Zach Snyder movies were horrible overall. Suicide Squad was just plain stupid and bad acting.

Wonder Woman was a home run in a lot of ways.

Also give me a Catwoman movie in Nolan universe with Anne Hathaway. I liked her much better than both Michelle Pfeiffer and the awful Halle Berry versions.

Give me Electra movie based on Daredevil Netflix version. She was great.

I have always considered this a cheap knockoff, and in no way related to the DC universe version of Catwoman.

- Not Selena Kyle

- Came back from the dead with super powers.

- Not in Gotham.


I think the name is more like a coincidence, but since they got the licensing from DC, they went ahead with that anyway to legitimize that mess.

I don't care what anyone says, I still love how well written Zod was in Man of Steel. In his mind, he was a hero of his people and the voice of reason back on Krypton, just taking a slightly different approach than Jor El. He never threatened to kill Kal, even when mad about being sentenced. He just vowed to find him. All he wanted was the codex, not revenge. When he did find him, he never lied to him. He was trying to do what he was genetically designed for, which was defending Krypton and its people, even though they turned on him. Certainly twisted and brutal from our point of view. He only really lost it when he lost all means of doing his job. He might not have had Terrence Stamp's cool voice, but Michael Shannon's performance and the writing was far better than Superman 2.

If you don't like the DC movies, watch Gotham on tv. Absolutely excellent, all kinds of characters are given backstories. Looks like they just revealed one character is to be Solomon Grundy. Also the best Catwoman so far too, which it looks like Selena will be becoming next season, as Bruce starts becoming Batman.
The Arrowvers shows continue to be really good too. Arrow got dark again, after a weak last season. Wondering if there will be a 5 year jump in Arrow and Flash between seasons? Supergirl too, I would assume. Doesn't matter in Legends.

For Marvel...The Defenders 8/18!

I agree that the Michael Shannon Zod was a more complex written character than the version played by Terrance Stamp.


The issue for me were the actors. I'm not saying Shannon is a bad actor because he most certainly is not. However, I just thought he lacked that ever-important "screen presence" or gravitas if you will that I thought Terrance Stamp had in spades.


Just my 2 cents of course.

Zod is not the big problem with MoS. The problem is that there is not enough development of any character for the audience to care. I do not care what happens to any character in that movie, because we get to know them very little. Nothing is at stake, even when you see a city crumbling and people dying. A hero is the defender of the weak and that should be his/her motivation...not father figure childhood traumas. They fight...and when I watch that, I do not care why or who wins, because I can't root for Superman.

A hero is just as great as the antagonist he overcomes and the motivation why he does it. In your sinopsis, Superman beats a guy that is doing his job. Not very compelling.

Then they came up with a Superman with a different attitude in BvS (that again...killed Doomsday (who uses Zod's genetic material), which has never happened in the comics)...with a Batman that kills people. But that is a different weak soup altogether.

I avoid superhero shows on TV. Too watered down for my taste. Even worse if they are playing as a prequel, or are doing a re-imagining of the characters.

I liked the first season of Daredevil on Netflix. Second was "ok". I dropped after an episode or two on everything else. I am not planning on watching Defenders.

I agree about the fights in the city. It did set up Batman/Superman well though. The comics and cartoons all did it too, so it's consistent, but still odd for a movie trying to be somewhat "realistic".
That bugged me about BvS too, Batman decides to draw Doomsday back to the city to get the spear. WHY?! Go get it and go back to the island! At least he might still be there, or away from a populated area if he moves on.

Keep in mind, Zod didn't consider himself anything but a guy doing his duty, but he was the only one with that perspective. It DID involve killing every human on the planet. Sups was definitely a hero stopping that. I thought it was refreshing that the movie didn't start with the full origin of raising Clark from little and just dropped a few flashbacks in. We all know the story by now. We don't need to see it all again. They FINALLY learned that lesson with Batman too, just adding some flashbacks. I'm about sick of seeing Bruce's parents in an alley, a gun, pearls dropping to the ground...on and on. We could do without ever seeing that again. Sure it will always influence him, but we know that and don't have to keep SEEING it.

You're missing out on Gotham. Arrow is hardly watered down. It's intentionally a Batman type story though, so it will be different than the comics, although all of those shows draw from them. I haven't read comics since I was a kid, so it doesn't bother me.

Finally saw this recently. It was at most "ok", didn't live up to the hype by any means.

I pretty much feel the same way. It just goes to show how powerful social media is these days when it comes to how movies are received by the public.

The movie had its moments but overall it was just an average movie.
Of course Gal Gadot could tie me up with the Lasso of truth anytime.


Wheels

The movie was good but not 90% good (but on the other hand, I can't recall a recent super heroes movie that is really well done and original even with a multitude of masculine stars in it) ... I am still happy that WW received at least some decent treatment in other garments than the 70's cheesy TV show... I am also happy it was a Woman's director and the success of the movie proved that WW by a woman in 2017 was an excellent choice and the sequel is on the horizon.

I liked it when I saw it but I feel I need to rewatch it to get a more sober assessment. I know the third act was quite the mess.

WW was a solid film but it was way overhyped thanks to the social media push.

Hmmmmmmmmm, Gal Gadot, she could make me watch a movie about paint drying if she was in it!

Thanks to WW, they re wrote her for Justice League and gave her more screen time where she can really be the badass warrior she is...