Critiques of ‘Marvel Girl 1984’: What Critics Say
Gal Gadot plays Wonder Woman in “Wonder Woman 1984”.
“Wonder Woman 1984 is not great and it is not terrible,” writes Stephanie Zacharek of Time Magazine.
This seems to be the general consensus of the critics, as the follow-up film will be released in international theaters this weekend.
The much-anticipated follow-up to “Wonder Woman” from 2017 was due to be released in June, but the ongoing global pandemic has postponed the film until Christmas Day in the US. The outbreak also resulted in Warner Bros. parent company AT&T will be showing the film in theaters and on streaming service HBO Max that same day.
“Wonder Woman 1984” takes place seven decades after the events of the first film. Diana Prince, the Wonder Woman of the same name, played by Gal Gadot, lives in Washington, DC and works at the Smithsonian. In her spare time, Diana dons her Amazonian armor and plays the role of a superhero to save the people of the city.
Diana’s life is interrupted when the would-be oil magnate Maxwell Lord (Pedro Pascal) receives a magical stone called the Dream Stone. The artifact grants wishes, but there is a cost.
For Diana, the stone brings back Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), her love interest from the first movie, who died and sacrificed his life to save others. Unfortunately, in order to keep Steve in her life, Diana will eventually lose her powers.
Diana’s friend and colleague Barbara Minerva (Kristen Wiig), a wallflower who envies Diana for her self-confidence and beauty, receives these characteristics and, as seen in the trailer, transforms into the vicious cheetah. Lord absorbs the magic of the stone and gives himself the ability to grant other people’s wishes, something he uses to gain power and prestige.
When Barbara and Lord team up, Diana must fight the two villains to save the world.
“Woman Woman 1984” currently holds an 88% “Fresh” rating from Rotten Tomatoes out of 92 reviews. If more reviews are received, this review may change.
Critics praised Gadot for this role. Once again, Gadot portrays Diana with effortless grace and cool confidence as he adds depth to an immortal woman who drifted and drifted in a mortal world.
However, reviewers called the plot “chaotic” and “confused” and were disappointed with the CGI creature form “Cheetah” that appears in the film’s third act.
Here’s a rundown of what critics said about Wonder Woman 1984 before her Christmas debut:
Peter Debruge, diversity
“Almost two hours of its 151-minute running time, ‘Wonder Woman 1984′ does what we expect from Hollywood tent poles: it takes our worries away and erases them with sheer escape,” said Peter Debruge, author of Variety in his review of the Films. “For those old enough to remember the 80s, it’s like going home for Christmas and discovering a box of children’s toys in your parents’ attic.”
Where the film falls short are its special effects, he said.
“A lot of the effects are hokey,” wrote Debruge. “Some are downright embarrassing (like Wonder Woman interrupting a well-choreographed desert chase to dangerously save two children).”
Debruge was one of many critics to mention the disappointing computer-generated rendering of Cheetah in its final form. The creature design is a “lame cat-level misjudgment,” he said.
Read the full review from Variety.
Gal Gadot plays Wonder Woman in “Wonder Woman 1984”.
Angelica Jade Bastien, vulture
For Angelica Jade Bastien, a vulture writer, Diana Prince’s attraction is her femininity and maternal instinct. Her strength shows not only in fight scenes, but also in subtle emotional moments.
Bastien believed that Diana’s character was “poorly developed in this utter jumble of conspiracy”.
She said the dream stone was “trite” and found faults in Diana’s longing for the late lover Steve decades after his death.
“Sure, Gadot and Pine have charming chemistry again, but his character’s return from the dead – in which he basically takes over the body of a poor man – raises more questions about the loopholes in logic,” she wrote in hers Review. “And then there’s their total lack of sex, a particularly damned reminder of how this genre ignores one of the most beautiful aspects of being human.”
Bastien wondered why this longing for Steve had become central to Diana’s identity almost 70 years later.
“Why? She no longer misses her Amazon sisters, whom she can never see again?” She asked. “It’s been about 70 years and she still hasn’t moved away from Steve? It’s deeply sad and predictable when a superhero becomes so attached to a single man that she’s ready to lose her powers for him.”
Bastien called the romance “claustrophobic” with an ending “ripped out of a Hallmark movie”.
Read the full review from Vulture.
Stephanie Zacharek, time
For Zacharek, Gadot shines when she is Diana Prince, a woman with human weaknesses and complexities.
“But being just one woman is not enough for anyone,” she wrote. “Diana-as-Wonder Woman not only saves the world, but is also often tasked with saving little girls from danger. She brings them to safety with a wink, and they beam her appreciatively, so grateful that she finally has one Superheroes have their own. “
“Why do we always need to be reminded of the purpose of Wonder Woman? Why can’t it just be?” Asked Zacharek.
She noted that when Wonder Woman arrived in 2017, there was a promise that Hollywood would see a new generation of superhero films made by women, starring women who may be less formulaic than such that revolve around men.
“Wonder Woman 1984 is perfect as a treat to distract the world from its problems for a few hours,” she wrote. “But it’s also okay to wish for less noise and more amazement, especially in a world filled with the former and in dire need of the latter.”
Read the full report from Time.
Gal Gadot plays Wonder Woman in Warner Bros. “Wonder Woman 1984”.
Esther Zuckerman, thrillist
“Wonder Woman 1984” is “a fun but chaotic sequel to the 2017 reintroduction of the Amazon superhero,” wrote Esther Zuckerman in her review of the film for Thrillist. “There’s a lot to love in” WW84 “: bold performances by a delightful cast, fantastic costumes, [Patty] Jenkins’ rapid direction. But it serves a plot that loses sight of what makes the character so great in the first place. “
Zuckerman noted that filmmakers had a hard time replicating the success of the first film. After all, so much of it focused on Diana’s naivete and her wonder of discovering a whole new world.
Decades later, Diana is exhausted and isolated, her mind numbed, wrote Zuckerman.
“What makes up for that in Act One is Barbara Minerva,” she said. “Wiig is hilarious yet grounded, both as the ignored nerd she starts out as and the butterfly suddenly able to walk in heels and take off a mini dress.”
Read the full review from Thrillist.
Disclosure: Comcast, the parent company of CNBC, owns Rotten Tomatoes.