As a sequel to 2017’s Wonder Woman, director Patty Jenkin’s “Wonder Woman 1984” is undeniably ambitious. It attempts to expand the myth of Themyscria, the home of the Amazons; continue Diana Prince’s story as a continuation of her previous chronological adventure; and ignoring the larger backstories in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) that follow in Justice League (2017).
For the most part, Jenkins and the company hold onto the idea of how WW 1984 meshes within the aforementioned framework, while creating something of their own.
This novelty is likely to divide the general public, if critical reception is a true omen, due to the fact that, as with the first solo outing, the battles of 1984 are more abstract than the rogue states themselves. .
With Jenkins back at the helm and a smaller portion of the original cast, 1984 is less of an explosive superhero outing and more of a mirror of an alternate past with direct ties to our present.
Like Diana Prince, Amazon warrior poet, audiences are more than ready to face such an ethereal foe.
+ The inevitable sequel …
Coming to 2020, a year that seems more like the result of a Machiavellian plan of a comic book villain and, aside from the discussions about the model for the film’s premiere, will open simultaneously in theaters and on the streaming service HBO Max (in the United States) the inevitable sequel and repeats the assets of the first film in front of and behind the cameras.
Wonder Woman 1984 immediately promotes in the title a temporary change in relation to the action of World War I of the previous film, starting from the eternal fascination with the decade of the 80s that has recently produced so much fruit in titles like Stranger Things (in television) or Ready Player One (in the theater).
It is precisely in 1984 that Diana Prince, who has not aged a day for decades, gets the chance to see her impossible wish to be reunited with Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) come true, whose loss she has never really overcome.
However, as you discovered early on, only the truth matters to be a true hero, and when the magical McGuffin falls into the wrong hands of Barbara Minerva (Kristen Wiig) and Maxwell Lord (Pedro Pascal), Diana’s alter ego does. to make it take action.
From the colorful poster to the hilarious trailer, the 80s scene promised nostalgia and humor, in a trend to counter the blackness of the universe of male counterparts in Wonder Woman.
However, the potential of this concept is wasted, aside from the obvious use of Gordon Gekko’s philosophy “greed is a good thing” – To those missing the reference, I recommend Oliver Stone’s 1987 film Discovery of Wall Street – and the superficial Cold War geopolitical framework that seems more interested in commenting on the fears and concerns of current reality than in undermining the current reality. context of time.
This is in fact one of the Achilles’ heels of this sequel (admittedly inherited from the first film): the need to preach to the viewer, starting from here embarrassing and almost literal statements.
It is beneficial to use a cultural vehicle of this nature to comment on sexism, rampant capitalism and the warlike spirit of human nature in general, and instead promote positive and inspiring values.
However, Wonder Woman 1984 executes her ideas with such a hard hand that it invalidates her best intentions.
On the other hand, along with the athletic Gal Gadot and the charismatic Chris Pine, Pedro Pascal and Kristen Wiig have fun putting together an anthology of villains.
If the story is hard to grasp, with a lengthy prologue and a first act too entangled in the plot (pun intended), it offers us some striking and well-executed action scenes, with the emotional implication responsible for the delivery of excellent interpreters.
When Pascal knows exactly which movie he’s starring in and has fun with Maxwell Lord giving the stage massive cracks, it’s a treat to see Wiig lending his humble charm to Barbara Minerva, gradually transmute into a femme fatale with full control over his self-esteem, and finally in a villain at the height of the heroine, two characters inherited from the comics.
When the feeble writing justifying Steve Trevor’s return (and upon which the whole premise of the movie is based) can be ignored, it’s easy to see the desire to bring Chris Pine back along with Gadot.
Not only does the pair continue the chemistry we saw in the previous film, but there is also a lightness to the scenes in which Pine takes part, only lamenting the mechanics of the story that makes us wish we had more time in his company. .
+ Annotations
In short, the qualities of “Wonder Woman 1984” are canceled, not because of incompetence or technical failure, but because of the limitations of the genre to which it belongs, starting with the plot, written here in six hands by Patty Jenkins herself in collaboration with Geoff. Johns and Dave Callaham.
A successful superhero movie, be it Marvel or DC Comics, cannot escape much of the formula that requires a complicated plot, full of recognizable mythology and references to the pages of the comics that preceded it, preferably escalating personal conflicts. a global threat, and much action, inevitably culminating in a frenzied collision of chaotically pixelated songs by the inevitable Hans Zimmer or faithful disciple; in this case, despite his promises, he was the teacher again.
With these measures it becomes a blockbuster (or streaming views or illegal downloads).
Unfortunately, the cinema turns out to be here by accident. And, earnestly wishing us to move to a level playing field, Wonder Woman 1984 is clear proof that gender differences are meaningless, since mediocrity, like genius, is available to everyone regardless of chromosomes.