After what seems like an unbelievably long time, WW84 finally hits screens over a year later than its original release date. Not wishing to have a conventional release like Tenet or The New Mutants, nor a fully online one like Mulan, Warner have instead opted for a combination of the two. With cinemas in some parts of the world seeing it earlier in December, and a dual HBO/cinema release in the US from Christmas Day, it may be the first example of how the big titles will roll out this year. It will probably struggle to match Wonder Woman’s global box office of $822 million though.
Directed by Patty Jenkins, who also helmed the first Wonder Woman instalment, WW84 sees Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) working at the Smithsonian and clearly missing Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), who has been dead for 66 years. Aside from her anthropology work, she secretly fights crime as Wonder Woman, but very much tries to fly under the radar. Well, as much as a character as this can hide in a public place!
After she foils a robbery at a jewellery store the FBI contact her colleague at the Smithsonian, Dr Barbara Minerva (Kristen Wiig) to help identify some of the stolen artefacts. One of these turns out to be a ‘Dreamstone’ which grants wishes, and much like the Monkey’s Paw, these wishes come with a heavy price. Those affected include Barbara who yearns to be as confident and strong as Diana. This leads to her losing her kind and gentle nature, and ultimately becoming a ‘bad guy’, alongside comical villain Maxwell Lord (Pedro Pascal), who has been after the stone for years.
At first the appearance of the stone and its use does come across as very clunky and a massive macguffin, but ultimately, they do draw it into the mythology which makes it just about bearable. A lot more could have been made of the source of the stone and its power though, which would have rooted it more firmly in the narrative and made things more grounded. The Dreamstone is also how they manage to magic up Steve Trevor, as Diana wishes for him to be alive again.
This is problematic for a few reasons, as he isn’t reanimated, but his consciousness is placed in the body of someone who exists already. The film never addresses what happens to the consciousness of the donor, or why no one appears to miss him while Steve is wandering around wearing him like a meat suit. As supposed paragons of virtue it is weird that neither Diana or Steve are troubled by this and she merely states that she doesn’t see the actual face of the body, just Steve’s. Even an attempted lighthearted scene later on with the actual person, doesn’t seem to help clear any of this up.
As you’d expect, his appearance leads to a number of ‘fish out of water’ scenes, including the shots of him trying out clothes that were in the trailer, and being surprised by modern technology. Some of these moments of surprise are ok, but some do jar uncomfortably. He is confused by an exercise bike for instance, even though its precursor was invented in 1796, and more weirdly he is amazed by the Washington Metro. Considering that when he originally died in 1918, parts of the London Underground had existed for over 50 years, and the Paris Metro for 18 years, it seems very odd he would be so stunned.
All that aside though, the big takeaway is that WW84 needs to be taken with a pinch of salt and given some leeway to be fully enjoyed. It feels a lot sillier than the first film, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but just different. Interestingly, despite it being firmly set in 1984, it doesn’t feel like a period piece, but actually like an 80s film. The most immediate connection is that it has the same kind of sensibility as the Richard Donner and Richard Lester Superman films. Pascal’s ‘Maxwell Lord’ even seems reminiscent of Robert Vaughn’s ‘Ross Webster’ from Superman III, albeit a much more exuberant version.
The plot is ludicrous and hinges on a central idea that is neither profound or new, and it only barely hangs together. There is also nothing in the plot that is particularly surprising, and again that isn’t necessarily a problem. Mainly because they appear to be fully leaning into the big splashy 80s style of action movie, replete with somewhat dodgy interpretations of world politics and lack of nuance. It’s a big, dumb, superhero movie that should be taken as a slice of fun. This makes it a different beast than the first film, which personally is a shame, as there is a lot of depth and substance that could be explored in a more serious direction.
What keeps WW84 going is the performances, with Gal Gadot leading the way with her usual assurance. Backing her up, Wiig and Pascal are excellent with scene stealing moments throughout. Wiig especially feels at home, even though the film does fall into the old trap of having someone clearly attractive, being supposedly plain, but it never reaches the level of ‘She’s All That’. Putting the ‘Ugly Duckling’ trope to one side, the other improvement would have been if they’d utilised Wiig more, and the fact they didn’t is as much a mystery as the disappearing plate when Barbara has lunch with Diana.
As is quite often the case nowadays, WW84 is over long and could probably have been about 20 minutes shorter. It has its problems and definitely takes a different tack from the first film, but taken in the right way is actually a very enjoyable ride. You do have to accept a certain amount of clumsy elements and some silliness, but there is a enough flash and good performances at its core to keep you entertained. If you’re expecting a profound experience though, look elsewhere.
