Wonder Woman 1984

A very low-spoilers review.

The much-awaited sequel to the 2017 origin story of the first and most prominent female superhero debuted on Christmas Day in theaters and HBO Max. While we saw the original in a cineplex, we watched this one in the comfort of our home theater owing to the pandemic. And we waited a day because the girls wanted to see a Christmas movie (the quite good 2018 remake of “The Grinch”) instead.

The downside of waiting even a day to see the most-ballyhooed movie of the year is that one couldn’t escape the buzz without eschewing social media altogether. And it was almost universally disappointment.

The sequel lacked the magic of the original—almost certainly the best film in the DC Extended Universe series—and plodded at times. Even though it had almost exactly the same runtime as the first, it seemed far, far too long. The plot was much more confusing and required substantial suspension of disbelief even by superhero and fantasy standards. Still, it was perfectly enjoyable and Gadot remains the most compelling lead in the DCEU.

The reviews have mostly been bad.

Rotten Tomatoes currently gives it a 65 (although the Audience Score is a more promising 73). Its Critics Consensus:

Wonder Woman 1984 struggles with sequel overload, but still offers enough vibrant escapism to satisfy fans of the franchise and its classic central character.

Manohla Dargis of the NYT (“‘Wonder Woman 1984’ Review: It’s Not About What We Deserve“):

When Wonder Woman first hit the big screen in 2017, the possibilities for the character felt endless. After 76 years without a blockbuster to call her own — she muscled into comics, bracelets flashing, in 1941 — she had made it, becoming a box-office sensation. And, yay! The movies love sexpot vixens vamping in fetish wear (meow) and nice girls simpering in the wings, so it was relief that this Wonder Woman was neither. She was sovereign, powerful and lightly charming, and even when the movie had teasing fun with her it took the character, her mighty sword and cultural significance seriously.

The first movie is set largely during World War I, which set a lofty bar for the scope and the import of future adventures. The sequel’s title, “Wonder Woman 1984,” suggests that some juicy Orwellian intrigues are in the offing. Will Wonder Woman, a.k.a. Diana Prince (Gal Gadot), hijack a Soviet cruise missile, toss jelly beans at Ronald Reagan? As it turns out, the year mostly proves an excuse to pile on side ponytails, fanny packs and nostalgic nods to the kind of Hollywood blowouts that feature cartoonish violence and hard-bodied macho types. What is Wonder Woman doing in these campy, recycled digs? Who knows? Clearly not the filmmakers.

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. (It was written by Jenkins, Geoff Johns and Dave Callaham.) There’s a mystical artifact; an evildoer seeking world domination (bonus: he’s a bad dad); and one of those comic-book wallflowers who morphs into a sexy supervillain — you know, the usual. It’s a whole lot of unoriginality, but the used parts aren’t what sink “Wonder Woman 1984.” Familiarity, after all, is one of the foundations (and pleasures) of cinematic genres and franchises.

What matters is how awkwardly these elements — the heroes and villains, the jokes and action sequences — are put together. 


In the end, this movie never makes the case for why Wonder Woman is back in action beyond the obvious commercial imperatives. It’s a given that franchises are produced to make bank, etc., but the best chapters have life, personality, a reason for being and for fighting. They expand on their characters’ mythologies, using the past to explore the present. Three years ago, Wonder Woman emerged amid a reckoning on male abuse and power; the timing was coincidental, but it also made the character feel meaningful. In 2017, when Wonder Woman was done saving the world, her horizons seemed limitless. I didn’t expect that her next big adult battle would be at the mall.

Variety‘s Peter Debruge (“‘Wonder Woman 1984’ Review: Escapist Superhero Sequel Whisks Us Away From Real-World Disaster“):

For the past nine months, since a real-world viral pandemic swept the planet and forced the shutdown of civilization as we know it, we’ve been reading about how this or that motion picture is “the movie we need right now.” Movies don’t solve global health crises, but they can distract and inspire us. They can bring us together when we’re apart and heal the divisions that define our times.


For nearly two hours of its 151-minute runtime, “Wonder Woman 1984” accomplishes what we look to Hollywood tentpoles to do: It whisks us away from our worries, erasing them with pure escapism. For those old enough to remember the ’80s, it’s like going home for Christmas and discovering a box full of childhood toys in your parents’ attic. This is what it felt like to watch Richard Donner’s “Superman” for the first time, or to marvel at the strong female role models of such vintage TV shows as “Wonder Woman” and “The Bionic Woman.” Even if the ’80s seem as distant to you as the World War I setting of Patty Jenkins‘ history-making “Wonder Woman” feature three years ago, the sequel offers an amusing tour through that tackiest of decades, when shoulder pads and permed hair were all the rage.


Like Jenkins’ original “Wonder Woman,” this sequel spins out of control once the villains gain their full power, shifting from engaging character-based comedy to eye-crossing, CGI-bloated super-battle. (Cue Hans Zimmer’s typically overzealous thunder score.)


“Wonder Woman 1984” works better when it’s focused on just a handful of characters. The film offers a distinctly female perspective on how 20th-century gender dynamics shift when women assume a little extra confidence and strength, since disrespectful men are constantly hitting on and harassing Barbara and Diana. The key exception is Chris Pine’s gallant pilot character, Steve, who’s there to follow Diana’s lead — and also to marvel at such ’80s innovations as futon couches, Easy Cheese and the space shuttle.

RogerEbert.com’s Christy Lemire gives it two stars out of four:

When “Wonder Woman” came out in 2017, it was a thrilling breath of fresh air, both within the darker realm of DC Comics adaptations and the larger context of bloated summer blockbusters. Director Patty Jenkins’ film offered equal parts muscle and heart, with a perfect tonal balance between transporting action and gentle humor, dazzling spectacle and charming romance. Crucially at its center was the impossibly charismatic Gal Gadot, who was more than just a gorgeous and statuesque stunner. She radiated goodness, light, and hope in a way that was infectious, that made you believe in the power of superheroes beyond facile platitudes about doing what’s right and protecting mankind.

Gadot remains a winning and winsome figure in “Wonder Woman 1984,” and she retains her authentic connection with the audience, but the machinery around her has grown larger and unwieldy. Maybe that was inevitable, the urge in crafting a sequel to make everything wilder and brasher, more sprawling and complicated. In the process, though, the quality that made the original film such a delight has been squashed almost entirely. And yet, the foundation of the script Jenkins co-wrote with Geoff Johns and Dave Callaham, based on William Moulton Marston’s original characters, is a pretty simple one: It’s an indictment of greed, of our entitled desire to have what we want and have it now. The story takes place at the height of Reagan-era conspicuous consumption, hence the title, but the point “WW84” is making about the destructive nature of avarice is certainly relevant today.


At the end of this Dumpster fire of a year, though, “Wonder Woman 1984” does deliver a welcome escape, as well as a much-needed message of hope. We’ll take such diversions where we can get them these days, either spread out at a theater or from the safety of your couch at home. It’s fine. Sometimes, it even soars. But it could have been wondrous.

By far the weirdest review comes from National Review‘s Armond White (“Wonder Woman 1984 Is a Comic-Book Movie for Every Liberal“):

Hollywood liberals are in a tizzy because their frustrations about losing and winning overwhelm their judgment and greed. That’s the clear lesson of Wonder Woman 1984, a sequel to the 2017 DC Comics origin story of the Amazonian superhero (played by Gal Gadot) that was sold — and praised — as a Hillary Clinton analogy. Feminist director Patty Jenkins, along with her co-screenwriters Geoff Johns and Dave Callaham and her co-producers, including Gadot, are back to get revenge by making a Trump-bashing follow-up.


This over-plotted mess resembles Democratic Party overreach. Jenkins and team project their political fears onto the film’s story through petty point-making: A prologue about Diana’s childhood in ancient Themyscira introduces the idea of gender superiority; adult Diana’s co-worker Barbara Minerva (Kristen Wiig) suffers from sexism and her own inferiority complex; and both women are tricked into romantic foolery when Max Lord exploits their insecurity and selfishness — recalling the self-destructive madness that President Trump’s adversaries blame on him.


Despite its title, Wonder Woman 1984 has little to do with George Orwell’s prophetic novel. Why specify that year? Jenkins has said she “was curious to collide our Wonder Woman into the height of our current modern belief system, and what kind of villains come out of that.” Her mindless reference to today’s era, for which Orwell’s cautionary tale is taken to be a political handbook, ignores the actual tide of rising totalitarianism and submission (what Amazonian goddess Asteria calls “the tide of men”). It’s no mere coincidence that in this film Diana works at the Smithsonian Museum; that her Washington, D.C., apartment overlooks the Watergate Hotel; or that Max Lord’s greed eventually lays waste to the world, especially the American capital, which lies in smoking ruins. Not even this inadvertent swamp-draining image is much fun, given Jenkins’s inability to make Diana’s commitment to love and peace emotionally persuasive.

There’s a lot more, but you get the idea.

The antagonist (arguably, he’s not even a real villain) is clearly at least partly inspired by 1984-era Trump. And I didn’t enjoy the portrayal of Reagan as a bumbling idiot obsessed with nuclear weapons. But the larger message of the movie is fairly standard comics/fantasy/sci-fi trope.

As alluded to in some of the reviews, the central plot device, a mysterious artifact that grants wishes but at a steep price, is rather poorly thought out.

Moreover, Gadot’s Wonder Woman has now appeared in four films: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, set circa 2016; Wonder Woman, set in 1918; Justice League, set circa 2017; and WW1984, set in, well, 1984. Little to no explanation is given to her disappearances in between—especially in the large gap between 1918 and 1984. After all, there was another World War in there—and the comics version of the character appeared in 1941 and fought against Adolf Hitler. Not to mention why she suddenly has new costunes.

Regardless, a perfectly entertaining movie but I’ll agree with two of the reviewers above that there was a lot of wasted potential here.

If you’ve seen it, share your thoughts in the comments. Keep spoilers to a minimum, please—it’s been out less than 48 hours.

FILED UNDER: *FEATURED, Entertainment, Popular Culture, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.


  1. sam says:

    The antagonist (arguably, he’s not even a real villain) is clearly at least partly inspired by 1984-era Trump.

    Right down to the hair and the Norman Vincent Peale quotes.

  2. Mu Yixiao says:

    Suffered through 30 minutes and turned it off. It felt like an episode of “Saved by the Bell”.

  3. Michael Reynolds says:

    Hollywood cannot seem to come up with a superhero script that is not either an origin story or an extended chase to find/retrieve/destroy a MacGuffin. I don’t know whether it’s just trope-bound writers or a trope-bound system. There are some really great, original writers for movies and TV, people to whom I bend the knee. But the flow of IP generally goes from book to Hollywood, not the other way around.

    I found WW84 boring aside from mildly amusing wink-wink gender-swap scenes and of course just watching Gal Gadot walk in a bare toe-to-wherever leg-flashing gown. I’d have that as a screen-saver. Gadot is the Anti-Shiksa.

    At least WW84 avoided the giant blue beam of light shooting up into space.

  4. @Mu Yixiao: I watched about 30 minutes yesterday and it had the distinct feel of a movie that doesn’t really know what it is about.

    I do concur with “I didn’t expect that her next big adult battle would be at the mall”–especially since she seems to be super-heroing on the down-low because reasons(?). (I am with James, has she been doing anthropology for the last 70+ years? While I understand that she would still miss Steve, it seems weird she would be mourning him all these years later. Etc.

  5. Teve says:
  6. James Joyner says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    While I understand that she would still miss Steve, it seems weird she would be mourning him all these years later. Etc.

    Yes. While “one true love” is a classic literary trope, it’s just absurd that a gorgeous, brilliant, capable woman would just sit around pining for sixty-six years rather than getting on with it.

  7. OzarkHillbilly says:

    Superhero movies are pretty much dead to me. Dead Pool and Venom being the exceptions, but those guys are kind of super antiheroes.

  8. wr says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: To me, it felt like the creative team had scrupulously avoided answering any of the questions necessary to be answered before starting the script — like “what has she been doing for the last 60 years?” Or “is she a super-hero, or has she just collected a lot of degrees?” Or, most pointedly, the single most important question to ask about any protagonist of any story “what does she want?”

    And that refusal to ask questions just percolates through the movie. For instance — KIND OF SPOILER HERE — when Steve appears by taking over another man’s body, what happens to the other guy? Is he alive or dead? It’s not that I care what answer they might have chosen — it’s that it never occurs to the characters to ask.

    Or even simpler things — if you steal a plane from the air and space museum, how do you fill it with fuel? Since they don’t bother to ask, they just assume that all the planes sitting out on the tarmac as exhibits are sufficiently fueled to make it to Egypt.

    And if Diana needs to put herself in danger to rescue little kids from being run over by a military convoy, how is it that these children and their parents are incapable of hearing a half dozen SUVs and tanks (!) speeding down the two-lane road and crashing into each other in enough time to move the children the ten feet that would save them from danger?

    This may sound like nitpicking — and they are among the smaller of the problems in the movie — but they all go to the same syndrome — an belief on the part of the filmmakers that what they’re doing is so good and so meaningful that they don’t actually have to earn the big moments they’re reaching for. The arrogance is breathtaking… and infuriating.

  9. Andy says:

    Watched it at home with my 17yo daughter. She liked it more than I did but hated what she called the “kumbaya” ending. She also noticed some stuff ripped-off from marvel – the TV broadcast system, for example, is just a cheap version of Cerebro. The MacGuffin’s in this movie are forced to do too much work.

    The whole thing was disjointed. So much of the plot was contrived (like the invisible jet – they should have just cut that entire stupid scene).

    There was too much pandering to Gen-X 80’s nostalgia (and it pandered to the bad parts). WW was even more of a Mary Sue than the first movie (which I really liked)

    The thing that saves the movie from being a complete disaster is the acting, and the principles did their best with what they were given. But the chemistry between Prine and Gadot was missing in this film – he should have stayed dead.

    But it was “free” to watch so I can’t complain too much. I’m glad I didn’t pay to see it in a theater.

  10. Slugger says:

    Superhero films have very little appeal for me. I was a child before electronic media, and before I was able to read, I was told bedtime stories by my mother who drew on Eastern European/Jewish folktales with her own special twist. The stories all begin with the subtext of the common fears of children but transform these fears into fabulous adventures. They begin with the magic formula,”Once upon a time”, that reassures that fears will be confronted and overcome, and nothing too scary will happen. I find many current films too predigested, too rote, and not targeted. It’s the difference between a fast food hamburger and Mom’s brisket. Movies are dreams, but they are not my/your dreams; they are a uniform product, one dream for all. Books are different. A good book draws you in and gets you to create the experience. A movie overwhelms your senses and does not give scope for your thoughts. A great movie does this in a way that expands you, but most movies are pap.
    Bring back Baba Yaga!

  11. sam says:


    Steve appears by taking over another man’s body, what happens to the other guy? Is he alive or dead?

    Yeah. At a minimum, Steve could have called in sick.

  12. Andy says:


    Bring back Baba Yaga!

    Baba Yaga is John Wick!

  13. sam says:


    [A] belief on the part of the filmmakers that what they’re doing is so good and so meaningful that they don’t actually have to earn the big moments they’re reaching for.

    Well, it’s not like it’s a new thing. I mean, in the original King Kong, the natives are so terrified of the big guy that they build a huge wall across the island to keep him out. A huge wall with a Kong-sized door in it. Really?

  14. Michael Reynolds says:

    Everything you said. It was infuriating and killed my interest in the story.


    She liked it more than I did but hated what she called the “kumbaya” ending.

    That ending was pure gibberish. Cheating is how I think of it. The trick is to create impossible situations for your protagonist and yet find reasonable ways for him/her to escape. Talking everyone on plant earth into rescinding their wishes? Fucking hell.

  15. Paine says:

    I grew up in the 80’s so watch such movies with a keen eye for the details of the era. Seems like they always go over the top with the pastels, hairs spray, and big shoulder pads. But I suppose they do the same thing for all eras… I doubt every pimp in the 70’s was walking around in fishtank platforms. Curious how they will portray the 90’s 10 years from now… everyone wearing flannels and ripped jeans?

    I thought the movie was OK. There was this odd disconnect between the impending global catastrophe and the small personal stakes involved. WW wanted to keep Steve Trevor and Barbara didn’t want to give up her pretty low-key powers. With ICBM’s in the air neither of those conflicts seemed all that important to me. I’d probably dial down the epicness of it and focus on Cheetah and Wonder Woman. Pedro Pascal was fun in his role but it seemed like the piece that was jammed in there.

    Though still glad I had the chance to watch it at home for free without babies crying or loud teenagers.

  16. Michael Reynolds says:

    Yes, but at risk of making a sexist remark, they got Gal Gadot’s evening gown so very, very right.

  17. James Joyner says:

    @wr: Yes. The first question didn’t occur to me but the notion that the planes were not only operational but fueled was absurd. And I don’t think any of them could make it that far without multiple refuelings.

  18. wr says:

    @Michael Reynolds: “Everything you said. It was infuriating and killed my interest in the story.”

    One huge difference between this and the Marvel movies is that at Marvel they always think through the consequences of every choice they make. Hell, most of the Avengers movies are about the heroes fighting against some problem they created — Ultron is a result of Tony Stark’s attempt to create something indestructible to protect mankind; Civil War’s plot is triggered by the inevitable collateral damage from a superhero fight. (And in fact more than one Marvel villain has been someone who lost home or family while the Avengers were battling superevils…)

    If Marvel had made this movie, at the very least Steve and Diana would have run into someone who recognized the body Steve was possessing, and there would be consequences from that…

  19. Michael Reynolds says:

    At the point where they decided, ‘OK, so then Wonder Woman just tells the whole world to behave…” someone should have asked, ‘What the holy fuck are you talking about?’

    Marvel comics always had character and humor, not things DC was overly concerned with.

  20. Mikey says:

    I had pretty much the same issues with this movie as everyone else who’s commented so far. I should’ve known when the opening scene’s flyover of the Potomac had the 2006 Wilson bridge in a movie set in 1984. Minor, I suppose, but still. At least they put the defunct Landmark Mall to good use. (Apparently it’s to be demolished soon, and replaced by a medical center.)

    The concept wasn’t terrible–the principle of “your wish is granted…but it will cost you something dear” had great potential–but the execution was meh at best. And the film managed to be even less coherent as it went on.

    The 2017 movie was great, this one was disappointing.

  21. dazedandconfused says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    The interesting aspects of the creation of the Lasso of Truth. Says more about the guy that created the original WW, I guess, but perhaps a guide for how the writers might work themselves out of the rut.

  22. wr says:

    @Michael Reynolds: Maybe I’m too much of a cynic to be worthy of Patty Jenkins, but I kept thinking “there isn’t one person on earth who says hey, everyone else is giving up their wishes, I can keep mine”? I live in a country where the president is willing to see millions of Americans homeless and hungry because if he bothers to sign his name to a piece of paper it won’t piss off Mitch McConnell enough to make up for him admitting the president lost… and in this movie, not one person in the world refuses to give up his wish.

  23. Just nutha ignint cracker says:


    Or even simpler things — if you steal a plane from the air and space museum, how do you fill it with fuel? Since they don’t bother to ask, they just assume that all the planes sitting out on the tarmac as exhibits are sufficiently fueled to make it to Egypt.

    I liked the way they handled this question on an episode of The A Team.

    [plane starts to sputter and lose power]
    Hannibal: Murdock, did you steal a plane from the repair line again?
    Murdock: You kind of have to, Colonel, if you steal them from the on-line side, they turn up as missing too quickly.

  24. inhumans99 says:

    I agree with a lot of the criticism but I stand by what I told my brother after I watched on Friday, it was good but not great. Of the criticisms I chuckle at the most is the one about the jet, as I actually think that is a funny scene (let me tell you about this thing called radar) but my first thought was…wow, they keep the jets at the Smithsonian Museum fueled up and ready to fly???

    As long as you put that out of your head it was actually a cool sequence in the film.

    Also, as most on this forum are probably already aware WB was happy with how WW:1984 performed over the weekend and wants to go into production on a third film. I am down for that, and it will be a while before it comes out (Disney has already snagged Jenkins for Rogue Squadron), so hopefully this provides the time to create a script that will be a bit tighter and not filled with holes so large you could drive a semi through them.

    I still have not seen Soul, the other big film released this past weekend but hey, New Years weekend will give me the time to enjoy.

    I would have liked to see more of WW when she was a kid on the island (the island contest sequence was great), and even a glimpse of her teenage years on the island before she ended up out and about in the world.

  25. R. Dave says:

    Watched this last night, and yeah, I more or less agree with everything said above. It was just a bad movie in pretty much every way. It wasn’t even popcorn-movie “bad but fun”; it was just bad. I really don’t understand how big budget movies with obviously talented teams like this one can end up being so bad in such obvious ways. It’s one thing when a movie is well done – tightly scripted, well-acted, solidly directed and edited, etc. – but just doesn’t quite “click” for some nebulous reason and ends up being serviceable but not really great. That’s the risk in any artistic undertaking and even with the benefit hindsight, it can sometimes be hard to identify any particular weakness or failing. But when a movie (or book or whatever) is just chock full of weak elements that are so blatantly obvious they must have been easily identifiable in advance, I just can’t grasp why the filmmakers wouldn’t notice and avoid/fix them along the way. It strains credulity to think that among all the writers, directors, producers, actors, editors, etc., not one person noticed or felt the need to correct any of the myriad problems people have been complaining about since the movie premiered, so what the heck happened?

    I know the standard explanation is to blame it on some vague “studio interference” if the director/producer isn’t powerful enough to have a free hand or, conversely, to blame it on director/producer being too insulated from criticism if they are powerful enough to do whatever they want, but that seems too handwavy to me. Again, I’m talking about blatantly obvious weaknesses here, so “the studio” and the director/producer themselves should be able to see the problems too. Can anyone here – e.g., Michael Reynolds – who works in a creative industry shed some light on how this kind of failure really happens?

  26. wr says:

    @R. Dave: “Can anyone here – e.g., Michael Reynolds – who works in a creative industry shed some light on how this kind of failure really happens?”

    Well, I’m no Michael Reynolds… but a career in TV probably gives me a little insight into this, possibly even more than his hugely successful run as a novelist…

    I will say it’s hard for me to imagine why the choices for this movie were made they way they were. I don’t believe it was studio interference — the first film was a huge creative and financial success, and that would have bought Jenkins and company a lot of breathing room.

    What it feels like is that there were things they wanted to accomplish and they were so full of themselves after the first one that they forgot they still had to do the hard work of earning those beats. That they couldn’t just say “hey, you like us, so feel the way we want you to” rather than making us feel it.

    But… I’ve burned myself more than once by leaping at a job on a project that had obvious, easy-to-fix flaws… flaws that seemed incomprehensible coming from the very talented people who had come before me. And once I got in there I understood that of course the VTP didn’t set out to make these choices — all the bad decisions were not the problem, but the visible symptom of a much deeper problem… and that my choices would end up looking as bad, because the situation allowed for no good choices.

    I have a hard time imagining what underlying problems could have undercut WW84, but unless you’re actually in the room you’ll never know.

  27. Liberal Capitalist says:

    1) Liked it, and I suppose that I am pedestrian to say so, but I did.

    2) Had NO idea that Kristin Wigg was in it, and very much enjoyed her transition in the film.

    3) Steve coming back? Meh. But a wish is a wish, so roll with it.

    4) Nothing ever goes back to how it was. Ever. In a film, or in real life.

    Time is change.

  28. Rick DeMent says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    Actually, the script was cribbed heavily from two silver age WW stories. I guess you could criticize the decision to adapt stories from that era, but it’s not like it wasn’t off the rails from the source material.

  29. Ok, I finished it (in a couple of chunks while doing other stuff).

    -The best part of the film (for purely nostalgic reasons) was the mid-credits sequence.

    -The fact that Diana could make the plane invisible out of nowhere was silly (even for a superhero movie).

    -The flight sequence made no sense. She flew off to go…back to her apartment? (I suppose it was supposed to be Steve grief, but huh?).

    -The whole Steve Trevor bit made was just silly. It is as the whole premise of the movie was “how can we get Chris Pine back as Steve Trevor”) and the rest of the movie was written around that.

    -If we are going to go full wish, why have Steve inhabit a body? (And that she was willing to sleep with the possessed body was odd, shall we say?).

    -The rules for wished (that Lord had to make the person used the word “wish” changed during the movie, as did the rule that he had to make physical contact).

    -I do not understand how Cheetah made that final transformation, since she had already used her wish.

    -Why did Lord all of a sudden care about his son?

    -And I agree with many above: the notion that WW could talk he whole world into renouncing their wishes was ridiculous.

    -Really, wasn’t the actual, logical solution the killing of Lord (destroying the stone?).

    -Pedro Pascal was poorly used in this film.

    And on and on and on.