Critics reviews

Watching "Wonder Woman 1984," I couldn’t help but think of the utter hollowness of representation and how corporations have adopted the language and posture of political movements in order to sell back to us a vacant rendition of the change we actually want... 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.

[A] wallop of [1980s] flair is just what this DC hero franchise desperately needed... One flaw that has not been remedied, though, is the length. Jenkins doesn’t excitingly fill all two and a half hours of story, and the final battle is not even the best one the movie has to offer.

As talented as both Pascal and Wiig are, neither actor is given the scope to have much fun with their characters, and the climax in which good inevitably triumphs over evil and the myth of being able to have it all makes way for the value of truth seems, well, anticlimactic.

At once more ambitious and less focused than its 2017 predecessor... "Wonder Woman 1984" wears its excess as a badge of pride and its morals on its sleeve... [But] once the story reaches its emotional crest, all the foundational work gets lost in the plot’s momentum.

Patty Jenkins is behind the camera again, but this time without the confidence. Certainly some of the problems can be pinned on the uninterestingly janky script, a mess of goofy jokes, storytelling clichés and dubious politics... In the end, this movie never makes the case for why Wonder Woman is back in action beyond the obvious commercial imperatives.

One of the refreshing attributes of "WW84"... is that it doesn’t feel like part of a franchise. There are no flashbacks to action from the previous film and, though a post-credits stinger appears to tease one of Diana’s further adventures, no momentum-stopping crossovers of characters from other movies.

[While] the reteaming of Gal Gadot and director Patty Jenkins provides the expected thrills and excitement, this sequel shares the significant flaw of its predecessor: Both films graft an unwieldy and effects-heavy finale onto a movie that had managed to create relatable characters and situations, even when both are larger than life.

"WW84" is far from perfect: its length and fumbling of Minerva’s arc are chief among its sins, but equally there are no denying its simple, vibrant charms. Much like Christopher Reeves as Superman, Gal Gadot simply is Wonder Woman – and this latest entry is undoubtedly her most fun, spectacular and charming yet.

[In] setting Wonder Woman 1984 in a decade defined by greed, Jenkins makes the point that evil can often arise from collective apathy and selfishness rather than one costumed supervillain. Faced with present-day calamities such as wealth inequality and climate change, Jenkins is swinging the camera back to an era she sees as the root of many of these problems.

[While] Jenkins doesn’t attempt to match the fast-paced ensemble humor of the better Marvel films... she steers clear of the usual DC Universe glowering and excess with action segments that rely more on nimble maneuvering and speed than great clashing showdowns.

[The] sensibility of the earlier production has been transformed... Wit has been replaced by feverish caricature, feeling by sentimentality, and Wonder Woman is left with almost nothing to do for long stretches of a very long and disjointed story.

[A] superhero film that’s surprisingly light on superheroics, ["Wonder Woman 1984"] is so overstuffed that by the end, Gadot’s character and her performance are being shown up by those around her. Combined with the script’s tendency to go “Look over there!” whenever a plot point strains credulity, the movie is pulpy in consistency, too.