Wonder Woman 1984 Review

        This is one of the most disappointing films to start the 2020s. Everything was riding on this film, since it has a difficult task to be a sequel to a surprise superhero hit. Director Patty Jenkins returns to direct and is given a co-writer credit alongside other writers who are male. What could possibly go wrong? That kind of question leads to Wonder Woman 1984 being one of the most disappointing film sequels ever. The obvious question to ask is “what happened?”, but the real question is “Did Wonder Woman try to rape a guy?” SPOILERS will appear in the review. 

1. Everything

        Usually I start with the story, but this film is such a mess that I might as well just go over exactly what went wrong. For one thing, the film has Diana living in 1984 D.C., yearning for Steve Trevor. In the midst of that, Maxwell Lord played by Pedro Pascal, is a slimy businessman who is looking for the mythical wishing stone. They never establish if he’s aware of it or anything. There was reference that the FBI had tabs on the stone but it doesn’t go anywhere. 

        Kristen Wiig plays the other main bad guy Barbara Minerva. Let me just say, I never thought this film would have the cliché of the nerdy character being the bad guy. This happens and man, do they show just how adorkable Minerva is. Like she can’t walk on heels, has her briefcase drop papers, and the real kicker is that she’s jealous of Diana.  Now, there are examples of how to do it right, two examples, but the point is why did this film have a sharp drop in quality. 

        Did I mention that the film is 2 hours and 30 minutes? It’s that long, I feel that this film has two starts when we go back to Themyscira to see Diana compete in an overly elaborate Olympics challenge. Then we transition to a mall robbery where Diana saves the day. It was reported that Warner Bros. gave Jenkins the choice to pick one to open the film. She inevitably picked both of them. It only presents a new problem for the film universe. Before I said that the studio had no faith in the directors since they released a theatrical cut for the films Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad. What’s interesting is that Patty Jenkins had total control of the film. It’s one thing to have final say on what ends up in theaters, but I feel that she needed more people to speak up what was good and not. 

2. Degeneration of Diana

        With all that, it’s no surprise that Diana does one of the most questionable things for any superhero to do. When she comes across the wishing stone, she unintentionally wishes for Steve Trevor to return. The way they go about it is different for a change. When Diana is invited by Lord to attend a gala, she is followed by a man who utters sentences that remind her of Steve. She turns to shoo him away, the person morphs into Steve Trevor. Soon Diana falls back in love with Trevor. 

        They walk the national mall and Steve is wondered by the advancement in airplanes. There are moments where they had him try on 80s clothing, reacting to subways and art, I know it’s supposed to be a callback when Diana was the fish out of water. To be clear, the only reason Diana had that montage was that 1910s London was mostly male dominated. Anyways, the most problematic part of the film occurs, Diana sleeps with Steve. What makes it even more weird is when Steve looks into the mirror, he sees the person he is inhabiting. There’s no other way to go about it, but when you have a feminist icon just stoop that low and imply rape someone, it’s such a shame. 

        What makes it worse is that its revealed that anyone who wishes on the stone incurs the monkey’s paw to go into effect. Meaning that Diana gets progressively weaker. When Steve tells Diana that her wish is draining her, she asks why she can’t have the things that anyone has. I feel its such a left field characterization on the hero since she’s supposed to be above that. More so when Trevor’s death was just 70 years ago in the film’s time. One would think she would get over it. 

3. Escapism

        I remember reading the various reviews on Rotten Tomatoes that the critics kept referring to the fact that the film has an escapist aspect about it. As I watched the film, Lord’s character constantly reminded me of the former president of the united states. Like it’s so obvious who exactly Pascal is supposed to be. Even the hairstyle was a dead giveaway. I know for a fact that 2020 the year was a massive event that no one could have foreseen what would happen. 

        But I just don’t understand the reason have a character who isn’t just like Donald Trump in the least bit. Jenkins could have used any antagonist to make a very shoddy commentary on the decade, but I feel that it was entirely the point. It’s one way to make it subtle, its another to make so deafening that I wanted to walk out of my own house in disgust. What confounds is that the film doesn’t really have any message to say, which I’ll get into right now. 

4. 1984

        Out of all the decades from World War 1 to now, why would Patty Jenkins pick 1984 specifically? My guess is that she wanted to highlight the problems the 80s have that is mostly glossed over in pop culture. She could’ve gotten through any avenue to try to give a spotlight. Out of all of them, why go for the easiest one such as greed and living ostentatiously? There is literally a film called Wall Street which is exactly about greed in the 80s.

        I feel that she wanted to make the heroine a timeless warrior that I think the film just falls in its face. Like the whole plot isn’t limited to the decade, it could’ve been told in any decade. The only lazy way to incorporate the stretch of time is through nuclear weapons. Is she not aware that we still have a nuclear arsenal as of right now? Another missed opportunity about the decade is the lack of songs. Just one was played during the gala in the Smithsonian. Like the whole period wasn’t utilized in the least bit.

        This should be at least the last time we romanticize or have any show or film take place in the 80s. I feel that the decade has worn out its welcome and we should progress to the next decade. Not that I have any ill will about the decade since I didn’t exist in that time, but the overall point is that the story itself wasn’t limited to the 80s. It was just a cheap marketing gimmick to copy what’s now becoming a cliché to have a film laden with pop culture take place in a significant decade. 

5. Golden Armor Conundrum

        Diana’s golden armor was in full display in advertisements and in the trailers. It looked good for the most part, thinking about it before seeing the film I thought that Diana would use it as a last resort to stop either Lord or Minerva. Well, when Lord and now Cheetah arrive at a military broadcast installation, Diana flies over there. Just before that, Diana revokes her wish to gain her power back, she leaps away, but realizes she can fly. Her putting on the suit made no sense whatsoever. 

        I can get that Cheetah was too overpowered and Diana had to use the golden armor as a silver bullet to stop her. In context, it doesn’t make sense and I’m so confused that the film probably had to go through a rewrite and there was a lapse in story. Hell, the armor gets torn about by Minerva since its suppose to withhold a horde of men. No, an overpowered woman rips out the wings in the armor and just makes the whole fight scene so head scratching. 

        One last tidbit is that Diana eventually defeats Cheetah through an electrocution. Mind you she does it when they are both in a body of water. What I can remember in science is that gold is a conductor of electricity. Oh my God, I’m complaining about a leap in logic in terms of a gaudy looking golden armor. This film couldn’t possibly end well right? Well, Patty Jenkins sure messed up.

6. Oh, Patty

        At last, we make to the best part in the film, the ending. As Maxwell broadcast his message throughout the planet to make everyone wish for what they want. Diana uses her lasso to compel Lord to stop people for wishing things they want, she tells him that everyone has to appreciate what they have, which is the truth. This part is the worst part in the film. It’s supposed to be a callback when Diana cheated her way in the tournament. She is stopped by General Antiope who tells her that she has to earn things honestly. 

        So how exactly does cheating lead to people who want things they can’t have. Additionally, why did Diana want to cheat her way in the tournament, what was the prize to be won? We don’t know and the whole messaging in the film just falls apart. I think the worst part is Diana telling people to appreciate what they have, what if the thing that people want is to have a dead relative back? I think it just makes Diana selfish since she’s a perfect warrior demigod. The more I think about it, the more I think Patty Jenkins might’ve gotten too confident with this film. 

        That isn’t to say that she is a one trick pony as a film director. She directed the excellent film Monster and directed a few television episodes. The main thing to highlight is that I think she needs more help to refine how to tell a story and give a meaningful message. Everything in this film feels discombobulated since there’s overlap and inconsistent point of view. Like is this a Wonder Woman film or a Diana Prince film? It’s okay to focus on her humanity, but when it comes to her being selfish, it just makes the character that unlikeable. 

7. Lack of Vision

        I think the main problem with these DC films is that there’s a lack of vision going forward. Now, Zack Snyder had a stylized vision, but it wasn’t very good to begin with. What plagued the movies was that the heroes weren’t acting like heroes and there wasn’t enough depth about them to actually care one iota about them. It was clear that Warner Bros. wanted to leapfrog ahead of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. As they were doing that, the MCU started to become a league of their own. The biggest thing going against the DCEU is that the whole slate is inconsistent. 

        How does one go from a half-assed philosophical Superman film to this? There wasn’t that much thought or any kind of hindsight or foresight to be used since, there was an expectation of how these heroes are supposed to act. When you have heroes act opposite of what people come to expect, regardless if they actually read the comic books, they just alienate the general public. I just find hilarious that as much as Zack Snyder wants to display Batman or Superman as damaged heroes, there are action figures. 

        The bottom line is this, the MCU approach worked since they were limited to using heroes no one had heard of before they became a part of the cultural zeitgeist. Now kids are alienated and robbed of getting a good Superman film. As far as the future of DC films will go, I really don’t care. It’s clear that Warner Bros. has no idea how to do these characters. It says something when a studio is sitting on a war chest of characters to use, they only rely on characters everyone knows. Never once going super obscure of adapting a hero in a unique way.

8. Overall

        After all that, Wonder Woman 1984 is the most disappointing film that I have seen. I wanted the film to be good since there was so much promise. Massive lapses in character choices and story doomed the film from being as comparable as the first one. I still believe in Patty Jenkins, but she needs more oversight in delivering her voice into film. I hope her third entry is good, although I have no expectation to see it. 

        Wonder Woman 1984 gets a two out of five.