LET THE SUNSHINE IN: a review of "Wonder Woman 1984"

"WONDER WOMAN 1984"
Based upon the DC Comics series "Wonder Woman" created by William Moulton Marston 
Story by Patty Jenkins & Geoff Johns
Screenplay Written by Patty Jenkins & Geoff Johns & Dave Callaham
Directed by Patty Jenkins
***1/2 (three and a half stars) 

RATED PG 13

In the comic book movie wars continuously playing out upon our movie theater and now, television/streaming screens, the clear winner is so obviously Marvel over DC.

This is not to suggest that the Marvel Cinematic Universe is perfect by any means, due to the overall sameness of the films combined with a few subpar entries. And truth be told, Christopher Nolan's Batman (a DC character for those taking notes) trilogy, which consists of "Batman Begins" (2005), "The Dark Knight" (2008) and "The Dark Knight Rises" (2012) all operate on a completely different, more sophisticated and decidedly more adult level than the Marvel movies. 

But even so, Nolan's series is also considerably elevated, so much so, that one doesn't really connect them to the movies that have become the growing yet comparatively struggling DC Cinematic Universe, which consists of, but is not limited to, Zack Snyder's "Man Of Steel" (2013) and the bombastic mess that is "Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn Of Justice" (2016) and David Ayer's downright odious "Suicide Squad" (2016).

Where Marvel has so strongly played the long game, carefully building up its universe film by film into something where quality and content is relatively consistent with itself, DC has been playing catch up ever since, making for a series of films that are certainly expensive, but bludgeoning, bombastic, sometimes ugly, relentlessly grim rush jobs. And unlike the Marvel movies, the DC movies just aren't any fun!!!  

This is precisely what made Patty Jenkins' "Wonder Woman" (2017) feel like such a miracle!! It was, and remains, the best DC Comics entry by a wide mile due to its sense of absolute joy, excitement, exhilaration, unabashed and unquestionable sense of empowerment and yes...wonder...so much so, that even the trademark protracted, pyrotechnic drenched climax could not slow it down due to the combined enthusiasm of Jenkins and her leading superhero Gal Godot as Wonder Woman. 

Of course, the sequel to "Wonder Woman" was inevitable and now, at long last, after several postponed release dates due to the on-going pandemic, it has finally arrived via a joint release in theaters and streaming services. Patty Jenkins' "Wonder Woman 1984" is a high flying, splashy colored escapade that again showcases what a terrific screen presence Gal Godot actually is in this role and what a perfect team she makes with her Director. While it does not fly nearly as high as its predecessor, and despite quite a lot of the responses I have seen to this sequel, which have been decidedly muted at best, I enjoyed the film very much and for many of the same reasons that I loved the first film...although, this Wonder Woman arrives in a bit of a different tonal package.

Patty Jenkins' "Wonder Woman 1984" opens with not one but two stellar prologues. The first is a flashback sequence to the hidden Amazonian island of Themyscira, as the child Diana Prince (Lilly Aspell), daughter and niece of Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen) and General Antiope (Robin Wright), respectively, competes in an Amazon Olympics event, which results in a failure bot one packed with a lesson to be fully learned over the span of time.

Flash forward to 1984, where Diana Prince (Gal Godot), employed at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C. leads a solitary, insular life when she is not, however, secretly saving the day from all manner of crimes as Wonder Woman...in this case, a spectacular display of heroism as she foils a robbery of antiquities at a sprawling shopping mall. 

Enter the shy, awkward, genuinely sweet and habitually ignored Barbara Minerva (Kristen Wiig), a geologist, crypto-zoologist and new employee to the Smithsonian, who gradually becomes friends with Diana. The twosome soon take considerable notice of one strange object from the failed robbery attempt, an item identified as the "Dreamstone" and is adorned by a Latin inscription which details that the occupant of the stone may be granted one wish.

Also in pursuit of the Dreamstone is Max Lord (Pedro Pascal), a failed businessman posing as a wealthy donor in order to gain access to the Smithsonian. All three principals intertwine as Lord duplicitously woos the Dreamstone away from Barbara, which by this point, they have each accessed the power of the stone through their subconscious and/or fully intentional wishes. For Barbara, it is to have what she views as so powerful and engaging about Diana. For Max Lord, it is to become the stone, attaining its power to grant wishes entirely within himself. And for, Diana...her wish arrives when the love of her life, pilot Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), miraculously returns from the dead.

Be careful what you wish for...   

Patty Jenkins' "Wonder Woman 1984," is pure, unadulterated escapism, ebulliently executed is an array of boundless energy, candyfloss colors and an unrepentant cheerfulness, which I found to be quite welcome. In our time of superhero stories and which are just so seemingly consumed with trying to "out dark" each other with an overblown self-seriousness, what Jenkins has devised feels to be more of a throwback to the untainted innocence of Richard Donner's "Superman: The Movie" (1978) and Richard Lester's "Superman II" (1981), two films that remain at the pinnacle of the genre unquestionably.

No, "Wonder Woman 1984" is not operating at the same level as those aforementioned classics but it is finding itself somewhere within that similar cinematic neighborhood. One that is frothy, filled with derring do, is often a bit cheezy and corny but is so open hearted in its overall enthusiasm and belief in itself. 

A sequence where Diana and Steve taking flight in her new Invisible Jet as a rainbow of fireworks flash around them reminded me very much of the iconic sequence when Superman (Christopher Reeve) and Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) first take flight and set to John Williams' lushly romantic score augmented with Kidder's interior vocal of "Can You Read My Mind?" The also aforementioned shopping mall robbery sequence at the start of the film, plus other action set pieces, also carried that red, white and blue buoyancy, including a desert truck chase clearly inspired by Steven Spielberg's "Raiders Of The Lost Ark" (1981). 

I do understand some of the criticism towards this film, which is decidedly less serious than the first film, especially as Diana flies through the skies with her Golden Lasso of Truth as some sort of hybrid between Spider-Man and 1970's Saturday morning television's "Isis" (1975-1977). But, I am thinking this may have been an intentional yet risky choice. 

With "Wonder Woman 1984," Patty Jenkins has created a film that feels to scale younger than its predecessor as its messages are broader in tone as opposed to the bolder, more epic tone of the first film. It is a conscious choice to be a comic book film that is striving for a sunshine positivity than the grim, darker tones that have become a bit too sadly commonplace and therefore taken much more seriously than they really need to be or actually are. 

Honestly, the world can take only so many films like "The Dark Knight" or even Joe and Anthony Russo's "Avengers: Infinity War" (2018) and "Avengers: Endgame" (2019), all of those I loved. I think that there is something to be said for just being lost in the glow and succumbing to what is essentially a fairy tale and that is what Jenkins has given. "Wonder Woman 1984" is a fairy tale, a fable, a children's story and I completely fell for its "Super Friends" styled aesthetic.

Even with all of the bubblegum, Patty Jenkins and Gal Godot do take the time to inject some gently placed social commentary within the proceedings. One aspect about the origin al film that I was truly astonished by was how never at any point was Wonder Woman, all dressed in her provocative and revealing costume, ever objectified sexually, by the characters and certainly not by Jenkins. With "Wonder Woman 1984," the sexual objectification of women by men is weaved cleverly into the narrative suggesting how sexist behaviors have escalated and have become more open and overt as time has marched on since the 1920's. 

Diana is consistently wolf-whistled and Barbara Minerva is nearly raped at one point, only to be rescued by Diana, which is later followed by Barbara's brutal retribution over her attacker once the powers of the Dreamstone continue to take hold. But, what I felt to be most notable was how Jenkins attributed sexist to both men and women in regards to how we perceive women  based upon how they appear. When we meet Barbara, she is the proverbial wallflower with unkempt hair, large glasses and an inability to walk in heels, and so, she is fully disregarded...and that even includes Diana initially. 

Yet, once that Dreamstone takes hold, affecting Barbara's appearance, wardrobe, gait and even sense of self-confidence, only then do people take notice, become attentive, hang onto her every word and is also seen as sexually desirable--all of wish fuels Barbara's wishes to increasingly darker and dangerous degrees as her rise in power comes at the expense of her humanity. Jenkins argues that Barbara Minerva was fully worth knowing, respecting and loving from the very start but because she did not fit into societal constructs of what women could and should be, she was rejected and that instilled her rage which becomes unleashed during her transformation into the Cheetah.

Furthermore, there is Max Lord, played to the hilt by Pedro Pascal, who is obviously having an ecstatic time being unleashed from the taciturn, stoic and even faceless quality in his performance as "The Mandolorian." To me, this character was so obviously Patty Jenkins taking broad swipes as Lord is really a stand in for...Donald Trump! Come on!! The failed businessman and low rent television charlatan who masquerades as a big shot in order to swindle people out of their fortunes for his own gain and is called a "loser" several times in the film. Who else could it be? 

Lord's rise to megalomania via the Dreamstone, to me, truly felt like Patty Jenkins was wrestling with her own reactions to our exceedingly dark times under the Trump presidency as we witness a dubious character being granted everything he wishes for and how, again, the unlimited power is all consuming, resulting in a figure who becomes uncontrollable, unrepentant, unfeeling and operates with a full absence of malice and empathy, existing solely to serve himself at the expense of the world. Again, Jenkins presents all of this with a heaping spoonful of sugar but just swallow it and the bitterness is there.      

Now...to address the inexplicable controversy of the return of Steve Trevor, with all of the calls from viewers and writers regarding sexual politics and  sexual consent, to them, I would ask...are you aware of what kind of film you are watching? We have a movie about a mythical Amazon who flies an Invisible Jet and there are real concerns about sexual consent as Steve's presence arrives courtesy of the Dreamstone. Remember, this film is set in 1984, and to that end, Jenkins is just having a riff on all of the body swap movies of that time period like Carl Reiner's "All Of Me" (1984), Rod Daniel's "Like Father, Like Son" (1987), Brian Gilbert's "Vice Versa" (1989) and of course, Penny Marshall's "Big" (1988). So, and with all of that in mind, can we just eject this non-controversy once?

Additionally, to also address the controversy/criticism over Diana's longing for Steve, as if being in love and mourning  over her first and one true love makes her a weaker figure. Really? Moving over to the Marvel movies, um...wasn't Steve Rogers a.k.a. Captain America (Chris Evans), mourning over his lost love throughout seven films over a ten year period?! We certainly never questioned his strength, resolve or even his manhood and neither should we for Diana Prince. In fact, this is a quality that has ensured the character has attained growth over the two films while still retaining the purity of her being, especially her womanhood. 

In "Wonder Woman 1984," we now have a Diana Prince who is older, wiser and in constant mourning over Steve as well as everyone she had grown close with, loved and lost over several decades, an experience which has simultaneously isolated her from humanity as she embraces and is determined to protect it. That makes for a touching dichotomy for the character which again, is not taken too seriously as to upend the fun. But, it does give the film a taste of gravity so it does not float away into the skies.

If I had a real criticism for the film, it would actually have to be in its construction of 1984. We, as a society, have amassed a tremendous amount of archival material from and of the 1980s that I woud feel it to be easier to replicate in a truthful manner, more like "Stranger Things" and decidedly less like Frank Coraci's "The Wedding Singer" (1998), which seemed to exist inside of a 1980s funhouse and was resoundingly unrepresentative of the actual decade. At any rate, Patty Jenkins' representation was not terribly successful either, an all White breakdancing crew in Washington D.C. notwithstanding. 

I guess it just felt like a plea for nostalgia rather than anything driven by storytelling.  Jenkins didn't seem to utilize much of the decade purposefully and even by mid to late film, the conceit felt to be abandoned entirely. I mean --why was this film set in 1984? What was the significance of using that year when the movie felt that it could take place in nearly any year?

Regardless, I had a good time and for me, I think that was all Patty Jenkins' "Wonder Woman 1984" aspired to be. No, the wealth of inspiration and empowerment that made the first film soar is not present but with our world so fraught with uncertainty and anxiety, it felt good to me to spend some time with a film that possessed such a sunnier disposition. 

Wonder Woman legitimately placed a smile upon my face and I cannot fault her, or her movie, for that. I can only be appreciative. 

PRETZEL LOGIC: a review of "Tenet"

"TENET"
Written, Produced and Directed by Christopher Nolan
**1/2 (two and a half stars)
RATED PG 13

I suppose that it was a matter of time and it can happen to the best of them, even to filmmakers as superlative as Christopher Nolan.

For the past 20 years Writer/Producer/Director Christopher Nolan has unquestionably emerged and cemented himself as a true filmmaking visionary as well as a figure who can pop one absolutely tremendous bag of cinematic popcorn. He is one of the few major American based filmmakers whose filmography possesses an uncommonly high level of quality control and has the box office dollars to back him up, therefore making him a rare modern era director who can open a film based upon his own name and reputation. And in these days of franchises, sequels, prequels, reboots, re-imaginings and the like, Nolan's output is largely original, and his detours into the Batman saga all fit perfectly into his consistent themes of identity, memory, causality and the ever tenuous grasp to sanity.

Yet, for his full body of work, Christopher Nolan's number one prevalent theme is the concept of time, in all of its fluidity and fragility, and it has been an ingenious threshold to tackle over and again and he has proven its inexhaustible quality as a storytelling engine. In fact, over the years, Nolan's films have become increasingly complex and challenging yet very much like the magicians at the core of Nolan's "The Prestige" (2006), he is a storyteller of considerable gifts as he has miraculously been able to make the density of his concept tangible and even soulful and his commitment to his characters and story always carries the day and us right along with him.

With his latest epic, "Tenet," it feels as if Christopher Nolan has not only outdone himself but to the point where he is considerably undone. While not a disaster or even a mess, "Tenet" is a film that struggles tremendously to even make sense of itself due to its plot and themes which twists the concept of time inside and out to a degree that is essentially impenetrable and therefore, nowhere near as enjoyable or as satisfying as the remainder of Nolan's output.  

Where the actual plot of "Tenet" is extremely straightforward--a nameless secret agent known only as The Protagonist (John David Washington) embarks upon a mission to stop World War III by using time manipulation in order to cease an attack upon the present from the future--yet the execution is anything but. In addition to all manner of truly extraordinary action set pieces, in which we witness the art of time shifting backwards and forwards simultaneously, the film delves into additional elements including the svelte art appraiser Kat Barton (Elizabeth Debicki), her estranged husband, the Russian oligarch Andrei Sator (Kenneth Branagh) and the fight over their son, the pursuit of a case of plutonium, crucial algorithms, paradoxes, inversion turnstiles, temporal pincer movements and the clash of free will, destiny, order and entropy.

On the surface, Christopher Nolan's "Tenet" falls firmly in line with every other film within his oeuvre. Merging the heist film, espionage adventure and science fiction, it is a muscular production, staggeringly well filmed, staged, edited and mounted and propelled triumphantly by Composer Ludwig Goransson's dynamically propulsive score. And unquestionably, John David Washington asserts himself and anchors the film beautifully in the leading role, more than affirming his skillful magnetism as evidenced in Spike Lee's "BlacKKKlansman" (2018). He is no fluke and is definitely his Father's son!!

Nolan's talents as an action filmmaker remain superbly impeccable and as always, he possess the ability to fully raise your pulse rates due to the speed, intensity and outstanding choreography of his action sequences. An attack upon an opera house makes for one absolutely sensational opening sequence. The ensuing fight fights, war sequences and car chases all flowing forwards and backwards simultaneously are all breathlessly superb in their visual heft and force. It is such a shame that this global pandemic has affected our lives seeing movies in the theaters so profoundly for if "Tenet" delivered anything at all, it is that large scaled cinema screen scope and breadth that Christopher Nolan is known for and with this film he undeniably delivered the goods and even more than as expected.

But if only there was a compelling story to give a greater weight to the proceedings as a whole. Or better yet, because the film does indeed have a compelling story...if Christopher Nolan had told his story in a fashion that was as tangible as everything else he has made previously. It is not the concept. I tis all in the execution of that concept. 

Believe me, I deeply appreciate, and am so thankful, that Nolan is a filmmaker who clearly trusts that his audiences are intelligent enough and patient enough to accept his films, which do blend the visceral with the cerebral, the philosophy and the physics alongside the popcorn. For me, this has been a joy from essentially the beginning with "Momento" (2000), his crime thriller told in reverse and from the point of view of a man with short term memory loss. It was an ingenious storytelling tool utilized ingeniously and then further made firm by the commitment to the character development as well as the conceit. 

This specific balance has served Nolan extremely well throughout his career, especially as his narratives grew more complicated, most notably, the levels of dream states and corresponding time signatures of "Inception" (2010) to the enormously risky "Interstellar" (2014), with its usages of wormholes, black holes, astrophysics and time travel. 

As each film grew in their respective complexities, Nolan always devised of ways to keep the audience engaged and involved without dumbing down his material. With "Inception" for instance, we had the character portrayed by Ellen Page (NOTE: I am using Elliot Page's former identifying name and gender solely to mark and specify that film and that time), who served as the audience stand-in or as the student while Leonardo DiCaprio's character was the teacher. With "Interstellar," for all of its intricacies, everything in the film emotionally hinged upon the tenuous relationship between Matthew McConaughey's astronaut Father and his daughter (played over three time periods by Mackenzie Foy, Jessica Chastain and Ellen Burstyn, respectively).   

With each film, Christopher Nolan has upped the stakes conceptually, as if he wanted to see how far he could go as a storyteller and filmmaker and in doing so, possibly see how far he could take us in the audience as well. He always ensured a proper "through-line," an emotional core for us to get from one end of the film to the other.  For "Tenet" however, it is as if Nolan got inside his own head and couldn't find a way out, and in doing so, he left all of us behind in a story that left me confused, frustrated and even after having read a full synopsis after watching the film, I was even more confused as to what I had even experienced, regardless of how often I was held enthralled. 

To say that "Tenet" is confusing would be an understatement. Now, for a story such as the one this film is trying to tell, as with several of Christopher Nolan's past films, a certain level of disorientation is to be expected and it is indeed a sizeable part of the fun. With regards to "Tenet," I was enjoying myself so much during the film's spectacular opening sequence, which begins at the aforementioned opera house and then smash cuts to a sequence where The Protagonist is being tortured by some goons on some train tracks which then smash cuts again to The Protagonist finding himself upon a large boat with a CIA operative. The feelings of disorientation continued in a quiet montage sequence in which we view The Protagonist in various states of exercise, meditative thought and even retiring for sleep and even those moments are all presented as if part of a jigsaw. 

It is all so breathless, sleek and confidant that even though I was fully unsure as to what was happening and why, I was masterfully carried away. In fact, I even wondered if I was seeing some sort of quasi-sequel to "Inception" as Nolan was certainly delivering similar vibes. Yet once the film began marching further into its plot, and therefore its conundrums, Nolan surprisingly began to lose me.  

I think for me it all came to a head during a moment fairly early in the film between The Protagonist and a scientist who unfolds a considerable amount of exposition in order to explain how one bullet could move forwards in time, how another could move backwards, how to tell the difference and then, even further, how to manipulate and interact with items flowing backwards. It is all a bit much but then everything is waved away when the scientist proclaims, "Don't try to understand it."

That line of dialogue stuck with me for the remainder of the film, as if it was something Christopher Nolan was attempting to tell us in the audience because it is unthinkable to me that he had no idea of how complicated his story actually was. If he was indeed informing us to not think about his concepts terribly heavily and just go with the flow of what he was showing us, then I  do have to have quite a bit to quibble about with him. Because if it is not that important to understand his story, then why write it in such away where it cannot be understood? 

From a pure construction level of writing, especially when it comes to the concept of time travel, one does need to establish a certain set of parameters in order for us in the audience to follow along and ultimately connect with the story and characters. I do think of Robert Zemeckis's "Back To The Future" trilogy (1985/1989/1990), as his rules for time travel were air tight in their construction. You knew exactly in which year you were, when characters were interacting with or as their past, present or future selves. You were never lost. James Cameron's "The Terminator" (1984), also set up a tricky paradox which was equally well established, consistent and therefore, easy to follow and connect with. For that matter, Joe and Anthony Russo's "Avengers: Endgame" (2019) set up their time travel plotline with a even greater intricacy that will undoubtedly continue to play out over future Marvel films and television series and even still, we connected. 

Granted, all of those films lean more heavily into fantasy rather than Christopher Nolan's films which attempt to inject a scientific realism but I do think you understand my point. In "Tenet," there was really nothing to hang onto beyond its concept as his characters were mostly unknowable and essentially constructs to shuffle the plot points along. That, and astonishing visuals are not nearly enough to hang an entire movie upon...or are they?

Nolan's exquisite, exhausting war film "Dunkirk" (2017) actually achieved perfectly the very thing that ultimately failed for "Tenet." Within "Dunkirk," we experienced one World War II event over three different locations and over three different time periods of one hour, one day and one week, with Nolan delivering everything in an entirely non-linear structure, with scant dialogue and little character development. What worked was that the film showcased Nolan's theme of the elasticity of time when in the throes of war, for when pinned down by bullets underneath a boat while nearly drowning or spiraling through the air in an aerial dogfight, one minute can feel like a lifetime as you cling to what might be the final moments of your life. That was Nolan's "through-line" the connective tissue that merged his film to all of us and it was brilliant. "Tenet," by contrast has no "through-line." 

But there is yet another exceedingly crucial element to this film, and has actually been a complaint about Nolan's work, and has increased considerably over the years, reaching its highest levels with "Tenet," and that is his increasingly controversial sound design. 

Christopher Nolan has often been criticized that his movies are simultaneously too loud as well as harboring dialogue that is often either inaudible or incomprehensible. While  have felt that he does mix his films to the louder side of things, I haven't really had any issue with his dialogue levels until this film, during which large swaths of dialogue are nearly impossible to understand as it is either seemingly buried in the mix, or voiced by characters in intense rushed hushes while wearing gas masks and so on. This again brought me back to that line of dialogue: "Don't try to understand it."

Now unlike "Dunkirk," which was primarily a visual experience and was not fueled with dialogue, "Tenet," by contrast, is loaded end to end with dialogue, to the point where even Nolan regular Michael Caine shows up to pass along a few key words (mostly about Brooks Brothers suits and their ineffectiveness in the extremely high finance world The Protagonist is about to step into). But so often, I found myself struggling to understand exactly what the characters were saying and it, as you can imagine, began to frustrate me. Nolan has been asked about his sound mixes in interviews and has expressed that if audiences really just understand "the gist" of what is being said, that works well enough for him.

To that, I really bristle because then, I have to ask the question: Why write expansive dialogue if I am not meant to understand it, either conceptually or audibly? Why not just make "Tenet" a visual experience like "Dunkirk" then? It makes no sense whatsoever to me. I even mused that if I had watched the film with subtitles, would I have enjoyed the film more. And to that, I felt that would also serve as a rightful criticism of the film because I should be able to connect on the first viewing, subtitles or not. 

Certainly, there is a tremendous amount to admire about the film and believe me, it is a spectacle that contains some of his most ambitious material. But for me, Christopher Nolan's "Tenet" was the film where he either reached too far or didn't reach far enough in every area of his writing and filmmaking in order to ensure the film hit every high note consistently. 

I have faith that Christopher Nolan will hit a grand slam again, and I am certain that I would watch this one again as well...but yeah, I'd better click on the subtitle feature.

SAVAGE CINEMA'S COMING ATTRACTIONS FOR JANUARY 2021

Happy New Year to all of you and in additional news since my most recent posting, on December 30, 2020, Savage Cinema reached its 11th birthday!!

As always, I have you to thank for this achievement because if not for you taking the time out of your lives to read anything that I have written and then, following up by reacting so positively to these reviews, I never would have written a second posting let alone 11 years worth of them. Yes, I write because I love to write but without you, writing in a vacuum just would not be as satisfying. Thank you so much for being here with me.

And now, here we are in January 2021, still with a global pandemic and the act of returning to a movie theater is nowhere near as safe as I would wish for situations to be for me to return to them--especially as the  COVID-19 numbers are as exceedingly high as they remain. While I long for the day to return to the movie theater to see films as they are designed to be seen and experienced, the streaming and On Demand services have by default proven themselves to being the format to see movies and in some ways, there are advantages to seeing films at home from obvious opportunities to pause, to stop, to return to them later, and to watch them at whichever time you choose rather than a movie theater's schedule. 

The disadvantage for me is that I am honestly overwhelmed. Much like the annual film festival in my city, which I have actually never attended due to feeling overwhelmed to the sheer amount of films being shown and the variety of venues screening them (where do I even start?), the sheer amount of films combined with which streaming format is showing them is a sort of opening of the floodgates that is counter productive for someone like myself.  Not only do I actually keep forgetting what is and is not yet streaming, I also struggle to remember which format has which film and so, this process has slowed me down more than I would like (in addition to being involved with the business of living and working within a pandemic and just having the mental energy to devote to my passion).

Even so, I will carry onwards and I am hoping that this very week, I can have my review for Patty Jenkins' "Wonder Woman 1984" ready and posted, as I just finished watching it very late last night.

And then, on the MUBI site, I also wanted to check out this new short film from Director Yorgos Lanthimos entitled "Nimic" and starring Matt Dillon.

At this time, it is probably much better for me to play it slow and steady rather than tossing out giant loads of ambition which ultimately goes unrealized. Nice and easy...that is the way to start a new year on Savage Cinema after such a tumultuous and unpredictable 2020. 

Please stay safe everyone. Please wear your masks and remain socially distanced and once yo have an opportunity to get yourselves vaccinated, do so. I wish to get to the other side of this entire awful experience as much as you do so let's all please band together and get to it.