• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Wonder Woman (DCCU) Review Thread (RT 93%)

I'll gladly eat crow on the fact that I thought Gal would be the weakest link and hold it back.

Still super happy to see the movie be great critically. Especially with such a prominent female super hero and given DCs recent film record. Aside from JL, I'm fairly excited for the rest of the DC talent lined up, but especially Whedon on Batgirl.

The sooner DC can out the Snyder movies behind them, the better.

I mean, I don't think those of us who doubted Gal following Batman V Superman are entirely blameless. In my opinion, she's really not very good in that film, and her performance wasn't particularly well received critically either, I don't think. It wasn't like some of us were judging her without having gotten to see her in the role first.

I'm definitely happy she seems to have really made the role work this time around, though. I'll have my crow with a side order of Greek salad, please.
 
Many of the trailers looked like rubbish, by the way, so if this in fact a good film, well done to the marketing team for failing to communicate that.

The Final trailer sold me. The music and editing was top notch. Glad the final film is good too.
 
Many of the trailers looked like rubbish, by the way, so if this in fact a good film, well done to the marketing team for failing to communicate that.

Lol come on. Everything has been on point from trailers, posters etc. Starting from that first comic con trailer.
 
So wait, are reviewers not biased against DC anymore? I'm confused.



Still feel like Suicide Squad was low-balling, especially now. If for no reason other than Wonder Woman is better known than anyone in Suicide Squad was.

They are both biased and paid off by Marvel, but see this film is so good that without the bias and Marvel checks it would have gotten 166%, the 96% is the most compromise mean Marvel could get.

Alternatively, BvS and Suicide Squad were just shit and this isn't.
 
I mean, I don't think those of us who doubted Gal following Batman V Superman are entirely blameless. In my opinion, she's really not very good in that film, and her performance wasn't particularly well received either critically, I don't think.

I'm definitely happy she seems to have really made the role work this time around, though.
People were saying she was the best though i don't see it and only thought she was the least bad and she didn't have a great impression on me but i'm glad she is good here
 
damn, got caught up with the MRA and almost missed this gem 😂

To be clear I didn't think BvS or SS were good films but the critics are frequently easier on stuff like the previous two Star Wars films which were solid but didn't deserve the praise that they got in some areas of the press.

There seems to be two critical extremes, amazingly amazing or mind bendingly awful when it comes to these big franchise films with no room for nuance.

...What? It means that I think it's good, which is all there is. There's no objective good or bad in art, there's just consensus. I can turn that around and say: "Just because you don't like something doesn't make it bad."

You can critically dissect a film and show that it has flaws. If you still enjoy a film despite those flaws then that's fine.. but it doesn't mean that those flaws aren't there.
 
i9UczMZ.jpg
 
What 'kid gloves'? Don't most Marvel movies sit around 6/7 out of 10?

I swear people see 95% on RT and just assume 'oh shit, it got 9.5/10!'
i'm kind of baffled that people still completely misunderstand what the rt percentage represents even though it comes up in more or less every single review thread. i still remember the bvs review thread that had people leaving impressions saying 'it was no way near as bad as critics said, i'd give it a 5/10!' even though the average rating was literally 5/10.
 
I mean, I don't think those of us who doubted Gal following Batman V Superman are entirely blameless. In my opinion, she's really not very good in that film, and her performance wasn't particularly well received either critically, I don't think. It wasn't like some of us were judging her without having gotten to see her in the role first.

I'm definitely happy she seems to have really made the role work this time around, though. I'll have my crow with a side order of Greek salad, please.

I didn't get a whole lot of anything from her in BvS, the main takeaway was "why is she in this movie?", since she appeared to only be in it for the purposes of having her in the trailer and in the team shot. In an already overstuffed, confused film, she was just another unnecessary "We are setting up JL you know" pointless plot point.

Solo film introductions are the way to go.
 
You can critically dissect a film and show that it has flaws. If you still enjoy a film despite those flaws then that's fine.. but it doesn't mean that those flaws aren't there.

Ok... but those "flaws" would still be subjective. The degree to which those flaws affect the overall experience of the film is also subjective. I agree with a lot of folks that Rogue One has pacing issues, especially in the first act. I don't personally feel that they ruin the experience enough for me to think of the film as anything less than a 4/5 personally, if I were to write a review of it. Another person could see those same pacing issues, be totally thrown off from the film and think of it as a 2/5. Another person could disagree entirely that there are pacing issues at all. None of these opinions are necessarily invalid.
 
What 'kid gloves'? Don't most Marvel movies sit around 6/7 out of 10?

I swear people see 95% on RT and just assume 'oh shit, it got 9.5/10!'


.

There is always people who don't know what RT means and keep saying it's ot as good or bad and that it should be like 80% even thugh that means nothing and is not how the score works.

Every thread or discussion on the internet
 
I mean, I don't think those of us who doubted Gal following Batman V Superman are entirely blameless. In my opinion, she's really not very good in that film, and her performance wasn't particularly well received critically either, I don't think. It wasn't like some of us were judging her without having gotten to see her in the role first.

I'm definitely happy she seems to have really made the role work this time around, though. I'll have my crow with a side order of Greek salad, please.

Yea, I agree. After BvS, I thought she would hold the film back. I'm glad to be wrong on that.

I guess it shows that Snyder just can't seem to make the actors work on screen (like Cavil).
 
Finally a really good DCU movie, took them long enough. Lets hope this is the turn around point for the DCU, expecting big things from Justice League now.
 
"There's no version of reality where Ant-Man tops 500 million worldwide."

Also, you seem to be purposefully ignoring my question from earlier in the thread at this point.

Considering you implied that there is a possibility that Wonder Woman makes $1 billion, I'm not sure you're the best guy to be giving out box office predictions.

People know who WW is. And the film is getting good press. And the box office predictions are riding exponentially. I wouldn't bet the film out.

Also, Cap M hitting 500 million would be a success.
 
I mean, I don't think those of us who doubted Gal following Batman V Superman are entirely blameless. In my opinion, she's really not very good in that film, and her performance wasn't particularly well received critically either, I don't think. It wasn't like some of us were judging her without having gotten to see her in the role first.

I'm definitely happy she seems to have really made the role work this time around, though. I'll have my crow with a side order of Greek salad, please.
Yup, I think lots of folks saw the performance in BvS and felt that way. In retrospect I think it was more due to the material and perhaps the direction.
 
To be clear I didn't think BvS or SS were good films but the critics are frequently easier on stuff like the previous two Star Wars films which were solid but didn't deserve the praise that they got in some areas of the press.

There seems to be two critical extremes, amazingly amazing or mind bendingly awful when it comes to these big franchise films with no room for nuance.
if you're talking about fans maybe, but critics? not true, especially when you look at the average ratings for these films. movies that get rt scores in the 80s and 90s usually have average ratings in the 7-8/10 range, whilst something like, say batman v superman, which has an rt score in the 20s has an average rating of 5/10. a lot of critics give middling reviews and scores. stuff like rogue one getting a high rt percentage didn't mean it was seen as 'amazingly amazing' by critics, just that a lot of people liked it enough.
 
Funny that a team that was set up to take down Superman-level threats could easily be solo'd by Batman.
Like all you need is Enchantress and maybe Diablo's god form even though he's still weak. Even if you need skilled specialists why the fuck do you need an insane clown with a bat and a shitty bank robber with a boomerang and a big guy with a skin condition. Don't forget the man who can climb anything.
 
"Watch out, Superman! It's Harley Quinn!"

"Who's she?"

"A crazy woman who wears hotpants! She carries a baseball bat!"

"Sounds like I'd better be careful!"

"This is Katana. She's got my back. I would advise not getting killed by her. Her sword traps the souls of its victims"

*Katana snaps in two against Superman's arm*

"Uh oh"
 
Top Bottom