{"id":1751,"date":"2021-03-31T08:00:00","date_gmt":"2021-03-31T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.senses.se\/en\/review-wonder-woman-1984\/"},"modified":"2026-03-22T00:04:46","modified_gmt":"2026-03-21T23:04:46","slug":"review-wonder-woman-1984","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.senses.se\/en\/review-wonder-woman-1984\/","title":{"rendered":"Review: Wonder Woman 1984"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Director Patty Jenkins<\/strong> was initially slated to direct Thor: Into the Dark World<\/strong><\/em> but ultimately departed from that Marvel project due to “artistic differences.” Consequently, anticipation was high when she subsequently undertook Wonder Woman<\/strong>. The first film, released in 2017, was a strong entry and, arguably, one of the better films in the DC Comics<\/strong> cinematic universe at the time. Early buzz surrounding the sequel, Wonder Woman 1984<\/strong>, began to generate significant hype.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The narrative resumes nearly 70 years after the events of the first film. We find Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot)<\/strong> working at a museum. The museum acquires a mysterious stone that grants wishes. When the ambitious Max Lord (Pedro Pascal)<\/strong> acquires the stone, chaos ensues, presenting Wonder Woman with her most challenging predicament yet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gal Gadot delivers a compelling performance as Wonder Woman, undeniably the film’s strongest asset. She imbues the character with a nuanced sensitivity, adding depth and credibility to her action sequences. However, beyond Gadot’s performance, the film falters. Pre-release sentiment surrounding Wonder Woman 1984<\/em> in Sweden was generally negative, yet I remained cautiously optimistic. The two Razzie nominations only amplified concerns. Unfortunately, my hopes were misplaced. The film proved to be even more disappointing than anticipated, rivaling cinematic misfires such as Cats<\/a><\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A fundamental issue lies in the film’s ambiguous genre and target audience. The opening fight sequence is remarkably uninspired and tonally inconsistent. The decision to set the film in the 80s appears to have resulted in an over-reliance on negative stereotypes from the era. Furthermore, the introduction of Kristin Wiig’s<\/strong> character, Barbara, a colleague of Diana (Wonder Woman’s alter-ego), relies on tired tropes. Barbara begins as a stereotypical clumsy nerd, complete with oversized glasses and baggy clothing. Her transformation involves the removal of the glasses and a wardrobe change to more conventionally attractive attire. This portrayal demonstrates a reliance on shallow clich\u00e9s, and Wiig’s performance earned her a Razzie nomination for worst supporting actress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The villain, Max Lord (played by Pedro Pascal), while energetically portrayed, suffers from a poorly defined motivation. While the film establishes his wealth and ambition, his ultimate plan for world domination lacks coherence. This culminates in an anticlimactic resolution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Having addressed some key issues, I must also highlight one of the film’s most problematic and unsettling plot elements: the return of Steve Trevor (Chris Pine)<\/strong>, Wonder Woman’s love interest. Spoiler Alert:<\/strong> Trevor’s consciousness inhabits the body of another man, with whom Wonder Woman then engages in a sexual relationship and embarks on dangerous missions, placing the host body at risk. The film exhibits a disconcerting lack of awareness or concern regarding the ethical implications of this scenario, presenting it as a readily accepted solution for Wonder Woman to be reunited with Steve Trevor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I could continue to detail the numerous issues plaguing this film. The flaws in Wonder Woman 1984<\/em> are abundant, ultimately resulting in a prolonged and critical assessment. To conclude on a slightly more positive note: one can only hope that the sequel demonstrates significant improvement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n