Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)Movie Review

‘Wonder Woman 1984’ Review: This spectacular action event is dedicated by Gal Gadot

Director: Patty Jenkins

Creators: Jeff John (story), Patty Jenkins (story), Dave Callahan (screenplay), Jeff John (screenplay), Patty Jenkins (screenplay), William Morton Marston (by

Cast: Pedro Pascal, Galgadot, Connie Nelson, Chris Pine

Release Date: 25 December 2020

IMDb Rating: 5.5 Out Of 10

This review was originally published earlier this month. We will reissue "Wonder Woman 1984" at the Christmas premiere of HBO Max.

Wonder Woman, also known as Prince Diana, is one of Washington's most vibrant major comedy characters, but you never know it to watch Wonder Woman in 1984.

This sequel covers almost everything. Its compassionate predecessor is probably the most popular and successful one in the besieged Washington comic series. The story of its time skipping provides a way to expand the usual plot beat of the superhero genre-which is desperately needed-and arrives by a good actor. Perhaps its unbalanced universe is not perfect; there are bland villains and a clear lack of ethnic diversity and sexiness. The sequel must fight the major leaps from Europe during World War I to Washington, DC in the early 1980s, but these problems can be overcome. of. Sadly, in "Wonder Woman 1984", all the light that shined in the first appearance of the series disappeared. This disappointing sequel not only highlights the terrible state of the live-action superhero genre in the movie, but also highlights the terrible state of Hollywood movie production as a whole.

In Patty Jenkins's candy-colored rendition of the 1980s, Diana (Gal Gadot) in 1984 found herself alone and lonely—whether by choice or by circumstances. When she started to build a friendship with a colleague named Barbara Minerva (Kristen Wiig), Diana's life as both a museum curator and an undercover superhero was disrupted by the arrival of the magic stone. At first, it unknowingly fulfilled Diana's huge wish: to see Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) reborn (to some extent). Tired easily and funny and clumsy, Barbara also gets some additional benefits-she hopes to be like Diana on the rocks, suddenly realizing power and confidence beyond her craziest dream. But when Maxwell Lord (a tall, well-dressed Pedro Pascal) who wanted to become an oil tycoon walked into the story with questions of self-esteem and fatherhood, things changed. Barbara in Greg Rucka (Greg Rucka), Nicola Scott (Nicola Scott) and Liam Sharp (Liam Sharp) starred in "run on the role" in 2016. The story of playing the cheetah in character) is well told, and Barbara quickly transforms from a newborn friend to a villain. At the same time, Magic Stone finally set the stage for the global turmoil (and a truly weird interpretation of Middle Eastern politics).

What has attracted me over the years is this character—the femininity in her mythology, and how it emphasizes motherhood, how her power is conveyed in battle scenes and more emotional communication—feeling in this completely chaotic plot Development is very poor. Superhero movies often rely on mysterious things to add fuel to their stories, but a magical stone satisfies their wishes like the paws of a sparkling monkey? This is a cliché, because it is a dialogue on stilts that reveals the beginning of the story. Diana's voice-over outlines her exploration of the Amazon race. When Diana finally rode lightning with her sparkling lasso in the dark sky, I felt no awe at all.

Of course, Gadot and Pine had a fascinating chemistry again, but his character's return from death—basically, he took over the body of a poor guy—provoked more about logical voids problem. Then they are completely asexual, a particularly damn reminder that this type of approach does not take into account one of the most beautiful aspects of humans. Instead, in 1984, Diana's non-pornographic desire for Steve has become all of her identity. why? She doesn't miss her Amazon sisters, she will never see again, more? It's been 70 years, she hasn't left Steve yet? A female superhero is so closely connected with a single man, she is willing to lose her power for him, which is a very sad and predictable thing. In the story of a superhero, romance may be refreshing, but here it is claustrophobic. (I don’t even want to start at a turning point at the end. This turning point is torn from an iconic movie, Christmas visuals and everything. It’s so annoying, I’m still not sure if it’s happened.)

Jenkins brought a new perspective to fighting dance and modeling in the original "Wonder Woman", and now she seems to have almost no illusions about the world she helped create. As required in the 80s, its lighting is very bright, but it is neither fascinating nor beautiful. Wonder Woman 1984 overwhelmed the senses and confuses generosity and miracle. This action faltered due to bad blocking; a strange spatial dynamic made it so that you can never determine exactly where the character is in the space of the scene. Particularly shocking is an underwater sequence involving Barbara and Diana, in which the cheetah-who should be terrified-is the actual effect of weakening the unevenness and the flashy CGI. In the close-up shots of the entire movie, the cheetah's face and body are not thoughtful, and he doesn't even have the ability to be wild. In the medium and long shots, especially in the last fight between the two women, there is a profound sense of weightlessness in the blow due to how the cheetah's body is framed. There are some cool things about Jenkins’ movie aesthetics-interesting spins on stealth planes, Diana increasingly relies on her lasso, her new flying ability-but, in general, the action sequence is exciting The promise felt unfulfilled.

In the end, the actors can't save the story. Wiig really, really tries, too. She vamps it up with Pascal, each of them going for arch performances the script can't match. The plot grows more tangled and confusing by the minute, as the film's central relationships are overshadowed by unnecessary globetrotting, flashy role reversals, and poor world building (which mines the time setting for visual and sonic cues but little else. The story does nothing to explain exactly what Diana has been doing in the years since WWI or why she decided to ignore intervening global horrors she might have otherwise dismantled.) In the comics, Diana forms a curious bond with Barbara, whose work as an archaeologist and obsession with the Amazons adds an intriguing layer to their friendship. Little of that transfers to the film; the sequel continues the franchise's earnest streak, but without a stronger narrative it feels unearned and, worse yet, calculated. Gal Gadot admittedly remains a warm presence in th e franchise, and Chris Pine does his best with the story. It makes sense that Steve and Diana would become positioned against Barbara and Maxwell, with his murkily defined goals of domination. But why not lean into the best aspect of the preceding story: the Amazons? Why bring Robin Wright back if you're not going to give her another juicy action scene? Blessedly, the movie is free of empty “girl power” slogans and mortifying needle drops, but is that enough? I want intrigue! I want grace! With the full might of the modern Hollywood apparatus and an ungodly amount of money, is this really the best we can get? The movie insults by offering scraps and making us pretend it's a meal.

"Wonder Woman 1984" was a turning point in the history of Hollywood business, and Warner Bros (Warner Bros) has high hopes that this film will become its (recognized good) streaming service HBO Max (at least in the US) when it is released on Christmas. The impetus needed. But this movie shows the bigger flaws of an aging superhero genre. When watching "Wonder Woman 1984", I couldn't help thinking about the complete emptiness of representation and how companies adopt the language and posture of political campaigns in order to sell us an empty representation of the changes we really want. In many ways, film companies train audiences to treat their blockbuster films as intrinsically valuable—especially when they put our reflection on the big screen. This is not a good movie. As more and more exciting directors are attracted by this huge genre, I can't help but reflect on how their talents can be better used elsewhere. If Hollywood can give them real control of the story, instead of treating their work as a channel for content that the film company can copy and sell.