Review Round Up: Wonder Woman 1984

We round up the reviews for this sequel focusing on Wonder Woman, which is out now in cinemas.

The Guardian: *** “This is an epically long and epically brash film from director and co-writer Patty Jenkins, but Gadot has a queenly self-possession and she imposes her authority on it.”

Empire: **** “As with the last film, the heart and soul of Wonder Woman 1984 is Gadot. Her Diana exudes grace and goodness, her power displayed with an unabashed femininity that still feels revelatory amid a crowded landscape of ripped male heroes.”

Variety: “As the wishes stack up and the world falls into chaos, “Wonder Woman 1984” loses its way, and while the ending’s not bad enough to renounce the satisfaction of what came before, it’s enough to shift our focus back to our own real-world predicament. What we need right now this movie can’t provide, but just maybe, it will inspire someone who can.” “Jenkins, who brought a fresh eye to the fight choreography and stylings in the original Wonder Woman, seems now almost disenchanted with the world she’s helped bring to life. It’s cheerfully lit, as the 80s period demands, but it’s neither visually intriguing nor beautiful.”

Screen “Wiig is terrific, but there’s just not enough of her. It truly is a wonder to see an A-lister like Chris Pine embrace the traditional female support role of the pretty sidekick so winningly, while Gadot is as smooth as silk and never less than watchable. The team is there, but this is most definitely a sequel. Wonder Woman learns how to fly like Superman, so that’s a bonus for future iterations; unfortunately, though, WW84 itself never soars.”

The Independent: **** “Wonder Woman 1984 is a piece of hopeful, uncynical filmmaking. And it’s ambitious enough to make up for its minor flaws – a little awkward CGI here, some clunky exposition there. Jenkins, alongside co-writers Geoff Johns and David Callaham, circle around ideas of power, truth, and desire – of what it means to be seen and recognised by the world. Diana’s look into the camera gives those ideas that extra punch.”

Indie Wire: “yet it’s also brimming with the same wonder and joy as the first film, the rare movie — of any stripe — that doesn’t just want to believe in the goodness of people, but is willing to make them truly work for it. That’s superheroic.”

Hollywood Reporter: “Gadot remains a charismatic presence who wields the lasso with authority, even tethering lightning bolts in some arresting moments. However, I missed the more hand-to-hand gladiatorial aspect of so many fight scenes in the first movie. There’s a disarming romantic touch in Diana acquiring the ability of flight through Steve’s explanation of its rudimentary principles. But watching her soar through the air — while consistent with later editions of the comic — also detracts from the athletic leaps that make the character distinctive, turning her into an ersatz Superman with a cuter outfit.”

Den of Geek: **** “This is an incredibly distinct, bold film that isn’t afraid to carve out its own identity in a well established landscape.” **** “Jenkins has said that she would have liked the film to be 15 minutes longer. Some viewers might have liked it to be 15 minutes shorter. But, for most of the running time, they will be happy to be in Wonder Woman’s uplifting company. In its old-fashioned, uncynical way, WW84 is one of the most enjoyable blockbusters to be released since 1984.”

The Telegraph: *** “Gal Gadot has movie-star charisma to spare in this Trump-era blockbuster, but even she can’t do battle with tier restrictions.”

The Times: **** “To the juicy stuff first. Is he or is he not Trump? The villain of this blockbuster sequel is a sleazy, cheesy, power-hungry American tycoon called Maxwell Lord (Pedro Pascal). Although a failure in all endeavours, Lord loathes being called a “loser” and introduces himself with: “I’m a TV personality and respected businessman.””

Wonder Woman 1984 is out in cinemas now.

%d bloggers like this: