"This is the way."

This is the way, indeed.

I seriously hope Jon Favreau is being paid well by the Walt Disney Company, especially after JJ Abrams did all he could to kill the MouseHouse's merchandising of the Sequel Trilogy.  Without getting into my opinion of those films (the short skinny: I didn't care for them), I certainly understand that the acquisition of the George Lucas entity was, largely, due to the ongoing profitability demonstrated by action figures, t-shirts, book tie-ins, etc.; and on that front The Force Awakens, The Last Jedi, and The Rise Of Skywalker failed (miserably) to build an Empire all of its own.

By contrast, Favreau's The Mandalorian is definitely going gangbusters at pleasing old fans while bringing ample new ones to the corporate trough.  Clearly, Walt Disney was caught off-guard as they'd expected better from Rey, Finn, and Poe (three stooges if there ever were), but now the future looks bright for Grogu, Mando, and even the controversial Cara Dune.

This morning, I stumbled across a posting regarding some of the newest additions to that growing universe of consumer goods (link), and I'm happy to give it a plug in this space.  Interested persons (with credit card handy) might wanna head over there to scarf something up before they're all gone and thus be forced to sell a kidney to get some of these first editions on Ebay.

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

I believe I've mentioned before in this space that J. Michael Straczynski's epic SciFi saga Babylon 5 just wasn't for me, and, honestly, that's for a lot of reasons, not just one.

First off, Babylon 5 premiered in an era when I already had an awful lot on my plate so far as my SciFi diet was concerned.  Televised Star Trek was still in its syndicated glory, and the explosion of new channels in the TV line-up really gave homebound audiences a wealth of options when it came to filling up one's entertainment schedule.  Furthermore, the home video craze was also near it's zenith, and I had already begun exploring SciFi and Fantasy properties from around the world that I'd heard and read so much more about and wanted to get to know.  To add even more kindling on to that fire, I'd seriously begun reviewing movies via Amazon.com and other websites, so sitting down to yet one more hourly investment really was a bit much.

Now, I didn't ignore Babylon 5.  I did give it a viewing of those first few episodes.  What I found -- while I loved much of the show's practical effects with make-up and some fledgling CGI -- was solid ... although it wasn't enough to pique my interest for hanging on to the long haul.  I didn't completely tune it out; but I've always admitted that -- at that time -- it just didn't hook me the way other programs did.

Once life settled down and it came out on home video, I did try to discover it ... several times.  I've told the story here about Jerry Doyle and I swapping a few Tweets about the show; and it was largely his encouragement that prompted me to put-up-or-shut-up and make it through as much of the show as I could.  I'd mentioned to him that I'd started that journey twice before, and somewhere around the middle of the second season I just fell out of step with the characters, that the story became all-encompassing, and I was much more of a character-fan than I was a plot fan.  I've always said that "good characters can make even a dull story interesting," and my inability to identify with any of B5's central folks kept me away.

Whatever the case, I rose to the occasion of his challenge, set aside my differences with the property, and finally did it: it took me some time -- along with some starts and stops -- but I finally made it through Straczynski's tale.

Sadly but perhaps not predictably to me, my opinion didn't much change.  Yes, the Babylon universe is one rich with its own species and history, but its characters -- for whatever reason -- just didn't do much for me.  The only one I truly connected with was Doyle's Garibaldi -- the everyman law officer whose tasking with martialing the impossible for a whole host of reasons -- but everyone else in the line-up seemed bigger-than-life in their own braggadocious way.  While parts of the ensemble worked wonderfully, there were other relationships relying on -- dare I say? -- some overly hammy acting.

Occasionally, I debated the show's merits with hardened fans.  (Mind you, when I debate any show, I'm never interested in changing anyone's mind: you like what you like, I like what I like, and if the two meet then that's great.  In the end, we're each allowed to enjoy what we want, and that's what makes SciFi fandom work at its best.)  While I've always agreed that the show was definitely gifted with an incredibly talented cast -- some that did remarkable work with what they were provided -- everything felt a bit too important all of the time, and that kept me from truly enjoying the show more.

One time, I described it this way: the Star Trek trinity -- Kirk, Bones, and Spock -- works because each player his a role within the trio.  Sometimes, I agreed with Kirk.  Other times, Bones convinced Kirk that he was wrong, causing Kirk to kinda/sorta 'bend the knee.'  Other times, Spock's logic won the day.  See, Star Trek wouldn't work if all three acted like Kirk.  There would be no trinity.  There'd just be all Kirk all-the-time; and Babylon 5 felt too me like a show very much incensed with characters trying to be the king of the hill constantly.  It felt to me like every one of B5's players were trying to be Kirk, and I found that off-putting.

I know, I know, I know.  I'm wrong.  You're right.

As I said, at the end of the day, we are where we are.

Why do I bring this up?

Well, an article on IO9 reports that the somewhat 'remastered' incarnation of Babylon 5 -- something fans have clamored for for ages  (and I agree one is due) -- is now streaming on HBO Max.  The author points out (splitting hairs necessarily) that these available streams are not quite truly 'remastered,' but I suspect interested parties will look beyond some of those quibbles in favor of just enjoying the show in a much more polished fashion.

And yes that includes yours truly.  I'm thinking about surfing over there this weekend to watch an hour or two just for giggles.  Maybe I'll find my position has softened with age.

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

-- EZ

Just about the time when you think you've seen it all, some smiler on the Information Superhighway comes up with a little something something called the Historical Dictionary Of Science Fiction.

I just happened across this moments ago, and I've only had a few minutes to putter with it, so I can't honestly speak to the efficacy of what's in there and/or whether or not it's super-relevant to All Things SciFi ... but still?  How cool is that?

Link

Head on over there when you have a few hours to spend reading.  I'm sure you'll find something worth the price of admission.

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

Ay, carumba!  If it isn't bad enough that the Joe Biden Presidency threatens to bankrupt everyday Americans with each passing day, now he's using the ever-failing United States Postal Service to bilk taxpayers of more of their hard-earned scratch?!

Politics aside, I'm a sucker for picking up the USPS's genre-related releases.  I've got a solid handful of Superman ones as well as some Star Trek ones in my collection, and now the Postmaster General is asking Star Wars fans to pony up some real scratch (link here) with the U.S. government's forthcoming issuance of their Star Wars Droids line-up.  The release will feature nine fabulous droids and one real stinker (JJ's tepidly useless BB-8), and unlike other sets I've seen it would appear that these are indeed Forever stamps, meaning you can lock in your postage savings today by investing in continuing to use the U.S. Post Office tomorrow.

Plus, they make great gifts!  I kid, I kid ...

For collectors, these are spiffy, and be sure to check your local post office as it's not unheard of that they offer related posters and postcards following up this initial release.  A poster commemorating this printing would be a solid add to anyone's collection.

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

-- EZ

Think what you will, smilers, but I do tend to enjoy the smaller, indie-style SciFi releases more than most bloggers on the Information Superhighway these days.

Simply put, indie releases tend to be free of some of the internal politics driving the major studio projects.  What they lack in marquee names and big budgets they have to make up in sheer moxie, be it a captivating story, smaller performances of its on-screen talent, or the blood and the sweat and the tears of folks who just won't quit until you've seen their film.  Yes, they sometimes lack the gloss of a completed project; and I've learned to accept the good and the bad when venturing into the webs they weave.

That said, I can't seem to find much information about Parallel Minds.  I happened across its trailer via another website I occasionally frequent.  From what I've culled from IMDB.com, this Canadian release has enjoyed thus far only an internet release in its native country along with a few festival appearances.  Nominations and wins are shown in the technical categories (a good indicator of quality, though I'm always a bit dubious when there are no acting citations).  Also, it's a bit hard to glean all that much from the trailer, except this looks as though it's going to throw mankind's fascination with Artificial Intelligence under the bus once more.  Granted, that ain't all that original, but who's to say the storytellers won't do it with some new twist?

In any event, trailer is below.  Enjoy it while you can!
​

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

-- EZ

I know, I know, I know!  I can already hear the frenzied, furious massing crying out, "But ... but ... but ... horror isn't SciFi!  Horror isn't Fantasy!  What are you doing featuring a forthcoming Horror release on SciFiHistory.Net's MainPage?!?!"

Anyone who's anyone that's been 'round here for as long as yours truly knows my affinity for a really good scare, and it's in that pursuit that I'm always pleased to plug ones now and then.  As I've often said (as well as been advised), it's good to reach outside your comfort zone to find something else which captivates the mind or titillates the senses, and ... well, what can I say?  Horror tends to do that for me.

Not every horror.  Mind you, I've never much been a fan of the slasher and/or splatter style flicks.  I can appreciate the real-world tension of a motion picture like Saw, but when studios latch onto the premise and frontload release after release after release of the same formula down our theatrical gullets it gets old real quick.

Horror that opens that fragile doorway between where we are and what lies beyond?

Oh, yeah.

Daddy likes that stuff.

So it's in that respect that I'm thrilled to share the following press release I received this morning from my friends at RLJE Films.  They don't have a screener for me review, so always keep in mind this is 'buyer beware.'  For what it's worth, I've checked out the trailer, and Host (2020) certainly looks interesting.  The flick looks to combine the live footage (aka 'found footage') format with some fairly traditional 'jump scares," and I've always found those features generally of merit.  But, as I said, buyer beware ...


​
LOS ANGELES (Dec. 28, 2020) – RLJE Films, a business unit of AMC Networks, has picked up select rights to HOST from Shudder, AMC Networks’ streaming service for horror, thriller and the supernatural. HOST will be released on DVD and Blu-ray on February 2, 2021. The film is Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes with a 100 percent score on the Tomatometer.
 
HOST was shot remotely during quarantine and features groundbreaking scares, stunts, and surprises, all filmed by the actors in their own homes. The project was commissioned, written, produced and will be released in under three months. HOST is the feature directorial debut of Rob Savage who co-wrote the film with Gemma Hurley (Shoot for the Moon) and Jed Shepherd (Multiplex). The film stars Haley Bishop (Angel Has Fallen), Radina Drandova (“Pickled Eggs”), Jemma Moore (Wonder Woman), Caroline Ward (The IMAX Nutcracker), Emma Louise Webb (“The Crown”), and Edward Linard (Golden Years). RLJE Films will release HOST on DVD for an SRP of $12.98 and Blu-ray for an SRP of $14.98.
 
In HOST, six friends hire a medium to conduct a séance during lockdown for their weekly Zoom call. Jemma decides to pull a prank and makes up a story about a boy she knew in high school who hanged himself. By doing this, Jemma inadvertently invites a demonic presence to cross over. Soon the friends begin noticing strange occurrences in their homes as the evil spirit begins to make itself known, and they all realize this night may be their last.

As always, thanks for reading ... and live long and prosper!

-- EZ

As I've always said, I try to celebrate anniversaries on these pages of SciFiHistory.Net.  While that's not always easy to do -- depending upon what's happening in the world-at-large as well as my own time commitments -- I certainly strive to bring readers a cause for celebration of All Things SciFi, and today I'm highlighting the relatively dubious Zaat for achieving middle age!  This is 50, Zaat!  You've never looked better ... or is that worst?

At best, Zaat is a curious oddity.  It presently stands with a whopping 2.5 stars (out of 10) on webdom's IMDB.com (perhaps a truer reflection of its quality owed to this rank being established by viewers).  For the record, it has no visible rating on either Metacritic.com or Rotten Tomatoes, the Information Superhighway's other critical measures; and that's probably for the best as well.

I had the good fortune (or was it?) of reviewing a complementary Blu-ray of the flick back in 2012 when it was released to the masses-at-large by Film Chest Company.  Given that viewing was almost a decade ago, I'm comfortable saying I don't remember much about it: I was mildly impressed with the creature make-up -- practical effects of that era always interested me -- but that was about all that truly kept my attention.  Back in the day, I was posting product reviews on Amazon.com; I'll scour my personal records and see if I can locate the review, and, if so, I'll happily post it in this space for readers to enjoy.

Zaat has enjoyed screen life under a handful of alternative names.  Some may know it as Attack Of The Swamp Creatures, while others recall it under the title Blood Waters Of Dr. Z.  However you may know of Zaat, it's safe to say that the impression is either boredom or lunacy if not a healthy mix of both.  And, yes, maybe even more watchers know of the film by way of its lampooning by the healthy knuckleheads of Mystery Science Theatre 3000 as they certainly shot holes in it for good measure.

Not entirely sure you've seen it?  Well, I'll embed the trailer below.  Give it a looksie, and you might be reminded of the sheer terror (or lack thereof).

Happy 40th, Zaat!  Here's hoping the next 50 years are kinder to you!

-- EZ
​

​Like many children of my generation, yes – I, too, your editor of SciFiHistory.Net – experienced a time in my youth when I wanted to be an astronaut.
 
Honestly, that interest did not last as long for me as it did with so many others.  In fact, it died out pretty quickly when I realized that space exploration was nothing like depicted on Star Trek, Forbidden Planet, or even Planet Of The Apes.  (Plus I discovered claustrophobia!)  I wanted the commanding adventure that television and motion pictures promised and not the cramped quarters, freeze-dried food, and conventional speeds that reality delivered.
 
Still, I kept reading about what the astronauts had to endure both for preparation as well as execution of these fledgling forays into above; and I grew fascinated in a vastly different way with these challenges.  Long before I’d seen it depicted in HBO’s From The Earth To The Moon miniseries, I knew of the Apollo 1 tragedy, the launch pad fire that took the lives of astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee.  And well before Universal Pictures brought Apollo 13 to the masses, I’d read an awful lot about what struggles that three-man crew faced in the failed moon landing and return to Earth.
 
As I matured, I came to understand that fighting aliens with a phaser-on-stun was not nearly as ‘commanding’ as were these real-life adventures.  Movies and television could deliver countless Captain Kirks, but the true pioneers were the men and women who blazed a trail all their own.  It is their stories that, inevitably, might make Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers a reality … so kudos to the Bazelevs Production for giving us one more to explore with Spacewalker (2017).
​

(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters.  If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-fee, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for my final assessment.  If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
 
From the promotional materials: “In the heat of the Cold War, the USSR and USA compete for supremacy in outer space.  Both superpowers race to be the first nation to have a man complete a spacewalk.  No price is too high and no risk is too great.  To set off one of mankind’s most ambitious missions, the USSR pair the unlikely duo of a seasoned war veteran, Pavel Belyayev, and a fearless test-pilot, Alexei Leonov.  Without proper testing, and inside a tiny spaceship, the two astronauts launch into the unknown to take on what no man has done before …”
 
For the record, I think it’s important to clarify a few items right up front as I’ve scanned some ‘facts’ on the Information Superhighway in preparation of penning my own review of Spacewalker.
​

First, this isn’t a “brand new” release.  (Rest assured, it isn’t all that old, either.)  Spacewalker – also known as simply Spacewalk in several outlets – was released in its native Russia back in 2017, and it followed around the world throughout much of that year and into 2018.  That I’ve been able to find, this release appears to be the first U.S.-based exhibition.  (It may’ve played at some film festivals, but those dates are generally harder to locate as not all get listed on IMDB.com, where I do much of my release research.)
 
Second, I’ve come across several online outlets that have billed the film as “science fiction.”  To be technically accurate, it’s not.  Spacewalker is a fact-based drama about one of the earliest missions of the Soviet cosmonaut program.  I mention this not to sway anyone away from enjoying the film; rather, I’m simply trying to set the record straight.  Think of this as the Russian’s equivalent to Ron Howard’s exceptional Apollo 13 (1995), and you’ll have it in good company.
 
That said, Spacewalker is, largely, a dramatic delight with some minor exceptions.
​

As one who has watched a fair amount of foreign film in my lifetime, I’m comfortable saying that this film suffers slightly in much the same way I’ve seen others from the far reaches of our planet: its set-up is a bit clunky.  Characters are introduced quickly with little fanfare or exploration, and what potentially distinguishes them from other players in the same motion picture gets short shrift.  Largely I’ve always chalked this shortcoming up to the fact that, as a Westerner, I’m largely unfamiliar with historical figures from the other side of the oceans.  (Stupid American!)  A bit more time spent in setting the players up is required (in my opinion) for releases that are spanning the globe, something all filmmakers should keep in mind as content delivery (via streaming) continues to seek out and explore new avenues.
 
Because I’m unfamiliar with the exploits of Belyayev and Leonov, I felt at a loss to understand the gravity of the film’s earthbound set-up.  Their relationship – and its particular importance to the story as it unfolds here narratively – could used a bit of tidying up.  What appeared to me an almost adversarial ‘friendship’ was, in fact, probably what made them an ideal team; even Leonov points this out later in the film when he insists on being paired with someone his superiors deem perhaps “too old” for their mission.  I would’ve liked a bit more story in this respect, even though others might find this depiction acceptable.
 
However, once our two space heroes achieve orbit, Spacewalker excels on practically every level possible.  The true-to-life drama of what these two intrepid souls endured makes for gobsmackingly good cinema, and it’s all delivered with some spectacular production values and state-of-the-art special effects.  Watching this at home on my reasonably large flat screen, there were plenty of moments I wished I had experienced on the silver screen.  The absolute wonder of outer space as it was discovered by these forerunners to Kirk, Spock, and McCoy is rendered brilliantly by the filmmakers here, and it’s no surprise for me to learn that the flick won the Golden Eagle (the equivalent of the U.S.’s Oscar) for Best Special Effects as well as earned a nomination for Best Film.
​

While I struggled a bit with Spacewalker’s earthbound moments (the set-up as well as the final third of the picture), none of that takes away from the sheer scope of Belyayev and Leonov’s story.  As well as the film lovingly recaptures their experiences for audiences to share, it serves as a reminder that this breed of man – those first tasked with shattering the glass ceiling that was Earth’s escape velocity – will likely never be seen again by the good people of Earth.  That’s why I’m proud to say that even though it isn’t Science Fiction, I’m nonetheless thrilled to give it coverage for the readers of SciFiHistory.Net as I think this audience will relish the release as much as I did.
 
Spacewalker (aka Spacewalk) was produced by Bazelevs Production.  DVD distribution (for this release) is being handled via MPI Media Group.  As for the technical specifications?  Wow.  This Blu-ray looks and sounds absolutely incredible from start to finish; no expense was spared in bringing this adventure to life on the silver screen.  As for the special features?  Honestly – like on many occasions – I wish there were more as the film is the kind of thing I’m always pleased as punch to discover.  There are two featurettes that explore the first walk by mankind in outer space, and I was surprised to learn that cosmonaut Alexey Leonov (before he passed in 2019) served as one of the consultants for the motion picture.  Thankfully, he’s prominent in both of these mini documentaries … and he’s so damn charming I wish they would’ve given him even additional time to tell us more of what he risked on behalf of our big blue marble.
​

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.
 
Fans of reality-based drama will find Spacewalker a delight so long as they can sit through some relatively clunky set-up from the first hour (or so).  Once the cosmonauts reach orbit, the film excels at depicting the real-life experiences of a breed of men – true pioneers – that first breached the heavens and propelled our planet into the Space Race.  Like reality, Spacewalker is filled with tension and relief in just the right doses.
 
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at MPI Media Group provided me with a Blu-ray of Spacewalker by request for the expressed purposes of completing this review; and their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.

​-- EZ

Ok.  Right off the bat let me assure you that I am not going to do a full review of Wonder Woman 1984 at this time and, quite possibly, maybe ever.  This isn't to say that I've nothing to add: rather, it's that I don't honestly believe I have anything substantive to sway one's opinion in any possible direction, which in many respects, yes, I do feel that's the job of a critic.  Anyone can sound off on a movie -- what was liked, what wasn't, etc. -- but it's those who practically engage in debating why you should see something versus why it isn't worth the time I find of merit.

The short skinny is that WW84 deserves to be seen, and then you can make up your mind on whether it was a worthwhile endeavor.  Personally, I think it was, though the sum of its pieces leaves an awful lot to be desired.

The wifey and I saw it on Christmas Day.  We actually tried to see it in theaters, but the little auditoriums in the vacation spot where we were holed up was already sold out (of every showing), so we instead signed on to HBO Max and watched it in the comfort and privacy of our little bungalow.  I'm glad we did, as we probably would've been fairly pissed had we paid real money to see it on the big screen.

The chief problem I had with all of it was that it was a narrative overload: there was simply too much stuff going on and not all of it was truly relevant to the story.  WW84 felt like three films rolled into one -- the Max Lord flick, the Cheetah flick, and the Steve/Diana flick.  Yes (haters, I was watching close enough to see how they all intertwined, thank you very much: my issue is that they did so ONLY because the script was structured like that, meaning these were some 'forced' connections and, thus, didn't flow as easily as they should have.

The script from Patty Jenkins, Geoff Johns, and David Callaham covered way too much ground.  At times, Max Lord didn't even feel like a necessary component of the film -- his bits were somewhat campy and occasionally nebulous.  When magic is your central theme behind the villainy, it helps to have every possible element of it ironed out perfectly: as a writer, you're asking viewers to suspend their disbelief already because -- well -- it's magic, and Pedro Pascal's character kinda/sorta broke his own rules a bit too often.  Heck, Lord even admitting he was "breaking the rules" in order to create Wiig's final transformation into Cheetah -- an event that came far too late in the picture to be as big and brash as it could've been -- and magic loses its luster when it can be so easily tweaked for convenience.

In fact, I could make an argument that the film would've worked better by simply cutting Lord from it entirely: have Wiig be the sole villain, dial back all of the worldwide wishing, and just give me a damn good confrontation between Wonder Woman and Cheetah.  That would've been a bit more pleasing to me as WW84 felt like the 90's Batman movies that -- for reasons I never quite understood or agreed with -- seemed to require two, three, or four villains, either stealing precious screen time from the hero or bloating the flick to unnecessary lengths because of all of these backstories.  At some point, too much weight held this Wonder down, and no amount of action sequences or proper sentiments could lift it back up.

A lot of defense I've read online about the film tends to center on its "tone."  I can't tell you the number of times I've read "the film's heart was in the right place" or some other such nonsense.  Sure, it's nice to have a superhero motion picture that isn't all heavy and dark -- I'm pointing at you, Christopher Nolan, as well as the last few installments of the Marvel Movie Universe -- but heroic films tend to require large stakes.  The world tends to be at risk.  The universe, as we know it, stands at a crossroads.  If it didn't, then we wouldn't need a superhero to save us, would we?

My problem with "tone" is that it's entirely circumstantial: much has also been written about how Diana's sleeping with the man because she believes he's her love Steve Trevor was wrong, and, yes, I had some issues with that, too.  No, I wouldn't equate it as rape, like so many have; but the man -- not Steve -- clearly didn't give his consent, so where's all the support for "tone" now?  That's what I mean about it being circumstantial: defenders point to the "tone" when it suits their particular viewpoint but ignore it when it doesn't serve the argument.  Following that flawed logic maybe Jeffrey Dahmer wasn't such a bad guy 'cause he culled the herd a bit, thus combatting global climate change.

And the "tone" perspective has been used constantly to compare WW84 to Superman - The Movie (1978).  Well, having been there to witness the original Superman film on the silver screen, I can say that such comparison has merit but Superman broke his father's rules by changing Lois Lane's destiny, turning back time, and undoing an earthquake.  It was entirely a selfish thing to do.  Those of us who know a thing or two about the movie know that the screenplay originally led right into Superman II, with Kal-El's flawed choice to save Lois causing the Kryptonian supervillains to be released from the Neutral Zone, a stroke of narrative genius if you ask me!  Break the rules and suffer the consequences!  Alas, it wasn't meant to be as Warner Bros.'s shenanigans forced a break between the pictures.

Contrasting the two films, Diana Prince doesn't exactly break any rules by 'wishing' Steve Trevor were still alive.  (It isn't as if she knew her wish -- a harmless gesture we've all engaged in -- was going to reap any results.)  Once he's back, she gets to live a little of what the two of them missed in their first rodeo, but she inevitably gives him up once he tells her its for the greater good.  Remember: she didn't choose in the film as the way it was played was that Steve made the choice for her, and she consented.  It's a sacrifice, but it wasn't entirely 'earned.'  Such sacrifice is more akin to Superman II, where Kal-El has to sacrifice his love for Lois Lane in order to regain his Earthly powers and save the day.  Maybe it's heartbreaking, but she already knew (based on the events of the first film) that it wasn't life-ending in any way.

​So, tonally, I don't see how WW84 compares to the first Superman.  Similar sequences do not necessarily establish "tone."

But ... I kept asking why bring Steve back from the dead in the first place?  Reanimating characters -- however it's accomplished -- is always risky, and I believe it should only be done if and when doing so adds something to the character's relationships.  As much as I thought about Steve's resurrection, I couldn't find any substantive reason to do it.  Nothing was changed in his and Diana's courtship (other than the sex).  Yes, he experienced some gaga moments in seeing how life had evolved in the decades since his demise; and that sense of wonder was interesting.  Yet, just like in the first film, Steve sacrifices himself for life as we know it, and Diana's left pining both times.  No change.  No growth.  So why do it?  And how are we going to bring him back again for WW3?  Or will we?

Suffice it to say, no, I didn't like the film.  Yes, it had some good sequences.  Yes, it had some solid performances.  But it was still a jumbled mess.