Raya and the Last Dragon

RATING: B-

For a little over a decade, Disney animated features have generally been able to split into two camps. There's the ones starring a Disney Princess that, while they can certainly appeal to anybody and do, are generally marketed toward younger girls (regardless of whether that's actually an accurate reflection of the movie or not). Examples include Tangled and both Frozen movies. Then there's the more adventure-oriented ones, like Big Hero 6, Wreck-It Ralph, or Zootopia--features that could be mistaken for Pixar work, and where the opposite of the previously mentioned target audience trope may apply. 

Raya and the Last Dragon is the rare Disney feature (at least these days) that attempts to split the difference and market itself to both camps. It's more oriented in the realm of fantasy/adventure, but it also has a heroine for a protagonist--who's technically a princess, but that word is never really said out loud and she hasn't been included in the "Princess" marketing lineups. She's more of a warrior type anyway. The result of all this is basically what you'd get if you crossed Mulan and Avatar: The Last Airbender together. 

Raya and the Last Dragon has an interesting enough setting and backdrop. Basically, the people of this fantasy version of Asia used to live together alongside dragons (not the angry fire-breathing kind--in fact, these almost look more Luck Dragons from the Neverending Story, minus the dog ears). Unfortunately, the world is also under attack by a force called the Druun which turns people *and* dragons to stone. The last living dragon banished them with the help of a magic gem, but vanished and the rest of the dragons never returned. And now the world is divided in a power struggle for the gem--and eventually the Druun return (for semi-spoilerific reasons), forcing Raya to try and find the mythical "Last Dragon" in hopes of saving the world. 

It's less complicated than it might sound. In fact, this movie actually does a pretty good job of world-building in a relatively short amount of time. The problems don't lie in the movie's setting or plot, even if the latter is a tad derivative at times. Nor does it lie in the protagonist, who is an effectively likable character but also driven cynical and world-weary by the divisions. The problems lie elsewhere. 

Let's start with the movie's message, which is not very subtle. It's a very unity-based one, which leans heavily on the concept of trusting in order to get there. While this is not bad in of itself and even arguably quite timely, the problem is in the execution. The movie--and Sisu, the "Last Dragon"--tell us these things about trust often, but the movie also gives us plenty of reasons to do the opposite. By the time we get to the final act and the inevitable eventually occurs, it does not feel earned. 

Then there's the issue of the Druun. They're the real enemy here, but what are they? As we see them, they're basically giant dark purple clouds. The movie doesn't seem very interested in explaining properly what they are or their origins. Are they an evil force? Something created by mankind? Or are they just a literal metaphor? Sisu gives a brief monologue at some point, and the best we get is that they're "the opposite of dragons," which in this universe, are positively benevolent. While the effects of the Druun are effectively enough to set some tension, it's hard to "love to hate" a villainous force when it's basically just menacing clouds that you're not even really sure what they are. 

Finally, there's Sisu, the Last Dragon. For a mythical creature that's supposed to save everyone, she's a bit underwhelming--coming off as more goofy and awkward at times. This is done deliberately, but why? The movie can't decide whether to portray her as an awe-inspiring force of good, or simple comic relief--two things Disney normally doesn't have problems separating properly. This allows Sisu to play into the movie's quite anachronistic modern late-2010's banter, which is funny at times but also a little overdone. ("Bling is my thing," for example, is something that is actually said in this movie.) 

Despite these various issues, it's not like there's nothing to be enjoyed here. As mentioned earlier, the backdrop and story are interesting enough. There's also some exciting melee combat sequences, as well as some martial arts. The animation is also quite astounding, bringing the environments to life beautifully. The side characters that join Raya on her quest are memorable as well. The movie certainly isn't boring either. 

Raya and the Last Dragon is a flawed but ultimately still enjoyable feature from Disney. Nothing to necessarily write home about, but hardly a waste of time either. Whatever the issues, there's enough of a sense of adventure and fun here as well as enough likable characters that it still makes for an entertaining time. Just don't go into it expecting a classic. 

Greenland

 

RATING: B-

Disaster films do not exactly have a good rep these days. They started gaining notoriety for being mostly spectacle-filled, effects-heavy pieces with very little substance and often flat out terrible writing. Roland Emmerich didn't do much to help this case between The Day After Tomorrow and 2012, which are kind of poster cases for this issue. In particular since the latter film, the genre's popularity seems to have tanked. Such films can be mildly enjoyable sometimes, but there's almost always nothing to them beyond popcorn entertainment--and it's a grimmer sort. 

Greenland at least takes a different route than most of its peers--it is in fact less about the spectacle and more about the human element. While there are scenes of destruction, they don't take up the majority of the movie and they often happen so fast there's not much time for action. And we generally only see it from the main characters' perspectives--and unlike some of the other movies in this genre, the destruction doesn't follow them wherever they go, so a lot of what we see is limited to news reports. 

Greenland's big disaster event is a comet breaking up into chunks in the atmosphere which then turn into meteors--which cause enough devastation by themselves, but there's one on the way which will cause an extinction level event. Fortunately, the world governments are somewhat prepared (because of course they are)--and as a result, there is still a way out for part of the population. Cue Gerard Butler's character and his family trying to get to safety before civilization as we know it is quite literally wiped out. 

This is a rather grim movie--not just because of the disaster in it, but because it also makes a point of showing how humans would react in such times. In that respect, it actually is fairly realistic; while there are some number of good people doing the best they can, there's also a number of people who will do whatever they can to survive. In that sense, it's comparable to Steven Spielberg's version of War of the Worlds, although it arguably takes things even further. 

Perhaps the biggest problem with this approach of focusing more firmly on the disaster from the perspective of the protagonists is you have to have a good leading cast for that. Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning were parts of what helped War of the Worlds work in that regard. Gerard Butler, while not a bad actor, isn't able to do the same and carry the movie here. Morena Baccarin fares better as the wife of the main family, but aside from Roy from The Office and Scott Glenn (both in smaller roles, though Glenn fares pretty well), there's no one else you've probably heard of in this movie. And while the characters themselves do grow on you over time, they don't really grab you from the start. (It doesn't help matters that in this case the movie *does* make use of disaster cliches with its main characters--estranged parents, child with a health condition.) The film and its characters get better later, but there is also a bit of time-wasting in the first half involving a quite idiotic kidnapping. 

Besides the 2005 War of the Worlds comparisons, this could also be called a more competent version of 2012--also about an apocalyptic event, but with better writing, more realistic and less over-the-top, and less annoying characters (and less characters in general). Some aspects of this film--such as the occasionally bumpy first half and the abrupt ending--hold it back a little bit, but it's still a step above a lot of the films in this genre from the past two decades. 

Greenland isn't necessarily anything to write home about, but it's better than might be expected because of its showcasing of how humans would react with an incoming extinction level event. To a degree, the movie almost feels like it's more about that than the Garrity family that we spend most of the time with. The uglier side of that human nature seen here and the very nature of the unstoppable apocalyptic event on the way might make this movie rather too bleak and grim for some. But if you've watched some of the bigger disaster releases from recent years and wished they would be better, this one might pleasantly surprise you a little with its more consistently serious take on a movie disaster. 

Soul

 

RATING: A

Soul is Pixar's newest and was also one of multiple unfortunate movie victims of the pandemic. Coming at a point when Disney was desperately throwing stuff at the wall trying to figure out how they could still make bank on their movies during a time like this (spoiler: they couldn't), one such result was Soul becoming a "straight-to-streaming" feature--which, much like "direct-to-video" before it, isn't usually a good thing (though perhaps not to the same extent). 

Soul also is Pete Docter's newest turn at the director chair, who has been considered one of Pixar's best. And... well, he did give us Monsters Inc and Up, both classics. Most would say the same about his most recent feature prior to this, Inside Out, though I am in the vast dissenting minority. There were more issues with that movie than most would care to admit, but part of it was limiting human emotion to five distinct ones and not much else--and the film not really reaching the heights of its ambitions. 

With all of that said, Inside Out was still very creative--considering that Docter was trying to essentially anthropomorphize abstract concepts at that point. He sticks to that formula for Soul, which takes things some steps further and asks: where do personalities come from? What "sparks" our souls? And some of that may actually sound a little similar to Inside Out (or at least the former question, anyway), and it's certainly not impossible that Docter is working with some concepts here he first came up with during the making of Inside Out. But this is a whole different beast in general. Instead of going into people's minds, we go to a whole different plane of existence where personalities and "souls" are created--or at least, the parts of their soul that make them who they are. (No explanation on where the souls come from *before* they enter this personality-creating plane of existence--also, despite dealing with things like the afterlife and souls, there's scarcely a hint of spirituality of any sort here.) 

This place is where jazz musician Joe Gardner (Jamie Foxx) ends up when he accidentally falls into a manhole, which seemingly kills him--and instead of going to the afterlife (here only called "The Great Beyond"), he ends up fighting his way into the "Great Before," the plane of existence where the personalities are created. Quite simply, Joe doesn't want to die yet--he's got a certain driven mentality beyond the usual. His adventure to try to reunite himself with his body leads him to cross paths with "22" (Tina Fey), a soul manifestation that, unlike most others, doesn't actually want to go to Earth. 

What follows is probably Pixar's most existentialist movie ever--not just because it asks questions about things like purpose or what makes life worth living, but because it goes to some different planes of existence--at least one of which is quite literally an abstract everyday metaphor made into a visible reality. There's even a scene where one of the caretakers of the "Great Before"--which appears to us as a 2-D presence made up of traced lines--tells Joe that it is manifesting itself in a form that "your puny human mind can understand." 

Delving into such topics and going to such places could've pretty easily turned out disastrous--in fact, it could've even come off as one of those movies where you ask what kind of drugs they were on. The result instead ranks among Pixar's most creative features ever, and arguably one of their more profound ones. Without giving too much away, the "moral takeaways" of this film are not too dissimilar to the likes of Cars or Monsters University. 

While perhaps there are certain things about this movie that are a little oversimplified, the movie does such a good job with the marks they're going for that it can be overlooked. Even if there's a thing or two I wished they'd touched on more or given a little more closure, the film ultimately reaches a satisfying conclusion all its own. 

There's plenty of other good qualities here. The film is quite hilarious, with some borderline meta humor at times or poking fun at real life figures or stereotypes (example: why the New York Knicks actually suck). The voice acting is also strong--Jamie Foxx is quite excellent here as he brings both the emotion and comic relief when needed. Also of note is the soundtrack, composed by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross of Nine Inch Nails, of all people--their more ethereal, very slightly techno-ish feel at times is often the completely correct vibe for the scenes in the different dimensions/planes of existence. (Jazz fans will probably be pleased as well, I assume--though jazz is not really my thing, so I'm not very qualified to say.) 

There are some things about this movie that are admittedly hard to explain without seeing the movie itself (or at least a trailer). Suffice it to say that it may just be best to take this reviewer's word for it--as well as all the other critics and fans who have showered praise upon this movie--and give it a go. Also suffice to say that while this obviously isn't the movie's fault, it deserved better than being "straight to streaming." This may not be saying much since most movies were postponed last year, but it's hard for me to see much else topping this for being the best film of 2020. 

Godzilla vs. Kong

 

RATING: B

The MonsterVerse is up to its fourth movie now, and this is the one they've been trying to build toward--an opportunity for Godzilla and King Kong to be in the same movie together, and punch each other in the face. 

On its face, that premise may sound a little preposterous. Since when would King Kong even be big enough to go toe-to-toe with the massive Godzilla, for starters? To be fair, there actually was a "King Kong vs. Godzilla" movie made back in the days of the original Japanese Godzilla movies (back when it was just dudes in rubber suits), so there is at least a precedent. And they did set themselves up for a bigger Kong to begin with--he was definitely larger in Kong: Skull Island than usual, and they said he was "still growing" in that one. So, at least in this universe, this is plausible. 

Anyway, if the idea of these two juggernaut monsters fighting each other doesn't particularly appeal, you're not going to have a very fun time here--because that basically is the premise, and not a whole lot else. Of course, one frankly shouldn't have been expecting much of anything highbrow from this sort of movie anyway. 

What sets up the big fight is Godzilla suddenly going rogue and attacking a city--for the first time in the series. While some realize there must be a reason as Godzilla only attacks when provoked, others wish to simply come up with a way to fight back. The result is Kong getting released from Skull Island--and Godzilla immediately seeks him out, because apparently this world isn't big enough for two apex predators/titans. Turns out there's more going on here, though, as there's a conspiracy going on involving a mega-corp to wipe out the titans for good. Because this world also isn't big enough for humans and titans! Which, in real life, would actually be kind of true--but in this universe, they've established that it actually is big enough (somehow). 

This movie does indeed deliver on the premise, and then gives us more as well. Much like Batman vs Superman before it (except this is a lot better) and other such movies/events, once the two main characters duke it out a little bit, they then have to team up to fight an even bigger threat--which some already knew who that was, thanks to leaks. But let's just say that, for multiple reasons, this movie ends up going into more sci-fi territory compared to its predecessors than one might have otherwise expected. 

One big plus about this movie is that it knows exactly what kind of movie it is and doesn't try too hard to be anything else. One of the primary criticisms of previous movies has been underwhelming and uninteresting human characters--presumably in an attempt to make the movies more than just monster movies. The problem was, they tried a little too hard. The 2014 Godzilla movie actually sort of worked in that regard somehow, while King of the Monsters tried to do a balancing act between the awesome monster fights and the human backdrop that causes the plot--with quite shaky results. Here, the humans are not as important to the storyline--and while most of them still aren't particularly interesting, the movie is ironically a little better off for it, as it's not pretending to be something it's not. The movie knows what we're here for. 

And that's another thing--there's some improvements on the monster fights too. Another criticism of previous movies was the fact that most of them took place at nighttime. Not really the case here--only one fight *starts out* at nighttime, and it's still lit up by the neon Hong Kong skyline (yes, Hong Kong is the main city that gets laid to waste by the fighting monsters here). Otherwise, most of our other fights or general monster action takes place in daytime, and this definitely helps with the quite awesome battle scenes. These improvements alone might be enough to make it the best movie in the series so far, though it's close. 

Other pluses in the movie include a good soundtrack by Junkie XL, and among the human characters, the little girl Jia stands out due to her connection with Kong. Also, Rebecca Hall at least seems like she's enjoying herself. (Yes, Eleven's actress returns in this movie, but she feels oddly tacked on here.) Also, the visuals in this movie are superb; in particular, the Hollow Earth that's been briefly alluded to in passing in previous movies (it's okay if you forgot about it) is visited, and the scenery there is astounding. 

Godzilla vs Kong is a surprising success for the MonsterVerse--it delivers on what you should expect and gives some bonuses too, and isn't dragged down too much by the humans (save for the subplot involving Eleven and the conspiracy theorist hacker). Credit to Adam Wingard for making the kind of popcorn action movie that we all wanted, without dumbing things down much or dramatizing too much of things we don't care about. It's not exactly an intelligent movie, but it's hardly brain-dead either and is quite a bit of fun. Fans of the franchise, monster/kaiju movies, or just fun escapist popcorn action movies in general will want to check this out. 

News of the World

RATING: C+

This was one of the few semi-major releases of 2020 to keep its release date. That might have been because, despite being a Paul Greengrass directed-piece starring Tom Hanks, it wasn't going to be a blockbuster or anything and it had a low budget (probably most of which was spent on snagging Hanks, considering the lack of any other known names on the cast list)--it may have cost more than it would've been worth to delay it repeatedly/indefinitely. 

A neo-western drama/historical fiction piece, News of the World takes place a few years after the Civil War. One former army member from the south (Captain Jefferson Kidd) makes a living reading newspapers to town populaces, going from place to place--apparently, this is actually a lucrative venture due to it being a time when a good number of people were too busy to study the newspapers that much. 

Despite him reading the "news of the world" and that being the title of the movie, that's not really the centerpiece of the plot. That happens when he is en-route to another town when he stumbles upon an abandoned girl, who has been living with the Kiowa after her German-American parents died. Problem is the Kiowa are holed up in Oklahoma (while the story takes place in Texas) and no one seems particularly interested/able in getting her to her "home" in a decent amount of time. Cue a western road trip move of sorts with Kidd and the kid to get her someplace she can be taken care of. 

While the concept may not feel unfamiliar, per se--it's still an interesting story that's helped out by the historic backdrop of the instability of the first several post-Civil War years. As a period piece, this works pretty well. Tom Hanks brings his A-game, as per the usual. And while Helena Zengel (who plays the child Johanna) doesn't seem to be given as much to work with character-wise, she's not half-bad as a newcomer. 

As a result of the instability of the region, there's some obstacles along the road which help lend this movie to adventure territory--namely, would-be-traffickers and a stop in a town run by radical dissenters. The former encounter gives us a shootout which involves some creative ammo. 

The primary problems with this movie come after these encounters. The last third of the movie is surprisingly underwhelming. While there is a resolution of sorts (and a satisfying one at that), there's no real final act/climax--not even on a dramatic level, let alone in the western/adventure territory. The rest of the movie just kind of happens with very little fanfare--quite unusual for something in this genre. I'm not saying we needed another gunfight or whatever, but at least have some sort of noteworthy dramatic conflict to close your story. 

The other problems with this movie revolve around the lack of interesting characters beyond the main two. Everyone else is just a placeholder along their journey, be it for good or for ill. As a result, Tom Hanks is left to pretty much carry the movie by himself. This sort of works, but only to put it into "slightly above average" territory.  

One more positive, however, comes in the direction. Paul Greengrass, while a competent director, does have a reputation for relying on shaky-cam and jump-cuts during more fast-paced scenes. That is nowhere to be found here--this movie is very well filmed, has good cinematography, and never really leaves you with confusion as to what's going on. 

News of the World is nothing special, but it can maintain one's interest if they're into this sort of genre or if they're big fans of Tom Hanks. The movie's big slow-down in the last half-hour or so is what really hurts it--otherwise it might've been a little more memorable. But there's still just enough positives that it doesn't feel like a waste of time. 

The Croods: A New Age

 

RATING: C

In a 2020 hellscape where--among other things--there were very few movies coming out, one thing that was likely unexpected was that one of the few movies that *did* squeeze through and still get released in theaters would be... a sequel to The Croods? For one thing, did that movie even really need a sequel? And why do it seven years later? Dreamworks (or their parent company, Comcast) must have not been expecting much of a return, because they went ahead and pushed it through despite low chances of making much money out of it. Not sure this movie needed to exist, but sure sounds better than Trolls World Tour or Boss Baby 2. Ugh. 

In defense of The Croods, it's not like there was that much inherently wrong with its predecessor, besides the heavy playing out of the "overprotective dad hates/is scared of anything new" trope. But it didn't do much to stand out from the crowd of computer-animated movies beyond its superb visuals--and Nicolas Cage, I guess, even if we could only hear him hamming it up this time. 

By the events of this movie, this prehistoric Flinstones-esque family is still fighting for survival, along with their new pets. The only main change is that now Eep and Guy have become *that* kind of teenage couple. You know the type. Until they run across a giant wall housing a sanctuary where other humans are living--humans that are more advanced, at least by prehistoric standards. And to top it off? They're called the "Bettermans." What kicks off is a saga of these two families' rivalries and how it gets both of them into trouble. 

Considering the time gap between the two movies and the fact that almost entirely different people made this one, this movie's a bit better than it has any right to be. Unfortunately, it does suffer from a couple of the same problems as its predecessor--and adds a new one or two as well. Conflict is still manufactured by characters being needlessly obtuse. The Betterman parents and their superiority complex get annoying fairly quick, as does their attempts to split up a certain new couple and send the rest on their way (though their daughter Dawn fares better--on a few occasions she seems like one of the only sane people in the movie). 

Also, especially down the stretch, this film gets to be a lot more over-the-top than its predecessor, and not necessarily in a good way. You'd think in a world where crazy animal combinations like a tiger cat exist, things would already be that way--but the first film took a lot of its eccentric creations/ideas and played them fairly straight. Here, it's to the point where after the teaming up of some certain characters, we get a crazy caption-filled almost-anime-esque intro sequence for this new "group" that's not as cool as the movie thinks it is. There are a couple of other cringe-worthy scenes. 

On the plus side, this is another visually gorgeous movie to look at. These two movies have had quite a penchant for colorful and detailed backgrounds. And the voice work is good too. The returning voices (namely Nicolas Cage, Emma Stone) are still good; but the newcomers (Peter Dinklage, Kelly Marie Tran) are *clearly* enjoying themselves, which does help the final product out a bit. 

There's still a fair amount of humor too, which includes the "antagonists." One of the latest weird animal cross-ups? "Punch Monkeys." It sounds stupid and it does seem that way at first, but it's actually often quite hilarious. Even the monkeys' *language* consists of punching. 

This movie doesn't quite live up to its predecessor, but it's not a total failure by any means either. And again, the question of whether this movie was even necessary could fairly be raised, but during a time where few movies are coming out, I suppose we take what we can get. There are worse ways to spend 90 minutes of your time (for example, Trolls World Tour).  

Wonder Woman 1984

 RATING: B

The DC Extended Universe has had a bit of a shaky run. The attempt to rush out the Justice League was a colossal failure for multiple reasons, and while the series is still sort of kicking, their future doesn't look bright. That said, they have been pretty good at doing solo movies. The first Wonder Woman and Shazam were excellent, Man of Steel was pretty great as well, and even Aquaman was surprisingly serviceable. Now, we get the first sequel to one of those solo movies (Batman vs Superman doesn't count as a Man of Steel sequel) in Wonder Woman 1984. Rather fitting, since Wonder Woman has been pretty easily the best thing to come out of the DCEU and the one thing that is universally believed to have been done right. 

Much like its predecessor, this one takes place in the past--although it does take a rather large time skip from World War I. The advantage of your protagonist being basically immortal is that you can put them in whatever time you want--and the chosen setting here was the American 80's, a rather promising idea. At this point, Diana is continuing to do Wonder Woman things, while somehow managing to remain fairly underground in the process (some suspension of disbelief is required there). When a mysterious artifact turns up that turns out to grant wishes, it puts her into conflict with an ambitious businessman (Maxwell Lord) whose plans/use of it eventually cause chaos--as well as (eventually) one of the more famous villains in the Wonder Woman canon--the Cheetah. Oh yeah, and the supposedly dead Steve Trevor is back somehow!

To get right to the points, WW84 is not as good as its predecessor. There's definitely some good Wonder Woman action as always, and the character herself is still enjoyable--but this is a more bumpy ride at times. To start with, there's actually barely any WW action for almost 90 minutes (save for a mall heist at the beginning, but that's more comedic than anything). The movie's first half spends a lot more time on establishing the characters of the two villains (which isn't a bad thing) as well as playing up the MacGuffin of this movie for a bit. Some of this still could've been cut down--namely, the very first scene involving a flashback to Themyscira could've been left out and it wouldn't have mattered one bit. 

Those are mostly issues with pacing and editing, but one more foundational flaw is that, for a movie set in the 80's, they do not bank on that setting or nostalgia as much as you'd think. There is a bit where Diana shows Steve around the city and a hilarious scene involving him trying on 80's fashion (and poking fun at it), but not a lot beyond that and a little of satirizing the more toxic consumerism/megalomania of the time. Not even one 80's song is played. Captain Marvel did a much better job of banking on the nostalgia of its 90's setting in multiple ways. Heck, the Bumblebee movie from the Transformers franchise did a much better job with the same 80's setting itself! 

Still, there's plenty to like here. As previously stated, there are some good action sequences, even if it takes a while to get to them. An Egypt highway chase and White House fight scene are particularly of note here. There's some impressive visuals as well, particularly in a scene where Diana and Chris drive a jet through a fireworks show. As usual, Diana/Wonder Woman herself (and Gal Gadot's performance) is a delight, and Chris Pine does well with the "man in the wrong time" role. But arguably of higher note are the villains. Kristen Wiig's Cheetah is actually played as more of a tragic villain, and it mostly works--though as an outsider to the comics, I do find myself wondering why a cheetah-human hybrid would be one of the most iconic villains of this canon. 

However, Pedro Pascal's performance as Max Lord is one of the very best things about this movie. He excellently plays a stereotypical charismatic 80's businessman with some unexpected depths who goes from silly to desperate to sympathetic to insane to power-hungry (and not necessarily in that order) quite convincingly. (And despite a mildly similar appearance, he's not really an expy for a certain real-life businessman of that era you may be thinking of.) It's Pascal's performance and Max's character arc that perhaps make this thing work the most, besides Diana herself. 

One other issue of note, though, is just *how* Steve Trevor ends up being in this movie. There were multiple theories before the movie's release, some of which were actually pretty good--but pretty much none of them ended up being right, and the actual explanation ended up being rather stupid--and odd/bizarre in the context of the plot, with a lot of unanswered questions. 

(SPOILER ALERT for the next paragraph, regarding the above subject.) 

Essentially, Steve unintentionally ends up in another man's body--which makes zero sense, and does raise some questions about whose body it actually is during that time period. Did the other guy get erased from existence temporarily? Is he still in there but suppressed? Why did Steve have to inhabit someone else to begin with? The movie is interested in answering exactly zero of these questions, and for some reason Diana and Steve don't seem to care that much either. This plot device could've been handled a *lot* better even in the context of the plot/MacGuffin that spawns him, but instead it's borderline hand-waved. 

Ultimately, WW84 isn't as great or even as impactful as its predecessor, but it's still a fairly good follow-up overall. It does stand on its own well too and doesn't depend on being a part of the further DCEU canon (though it does briefly set up its own threequel). As much as I've enjoyed the immersive Marvel Universe, these DC movies seem to work a lot better when they're more self-contained. This may be more of a bumpy ride than its predecessor, but it's still worth the watch, particularly if you're a fan of the character.