Well whatever... it's fine... Gal Gadot is legit at least.

Rating: 6/10 (3 June 2017)

As of this writing (premiere weekend), there is a major movement for some reason to astronomically exalt this comic adaptation as a masterpiece, but it doesn't even come close. It's half-way decent, and I do mean half-way. The good half consisting primary of Gal Gadot. She has nice physical presence and prowess, and authoritatively pulls off both wisdom and naÃ¯vetÃ©. I'd go so far as to say she's great as Princess Diana of Themyscira (Wonder Woman). But she's the only thing here that is.
As I have no inclination to regurgitate synopses, we're SPOILER FREE!
The script is paint-by-numbers, yet still manages to stray outside the lines and become messy. I WANT to suspend disbelief and buy into fantastical premises but they've got to portray the characters and circumstances as though a rationality does pervade the whimsy. The depicted societies have no reality to them -- not the WWI men in trenches, British high command, the German enemy, much less Princess Diana's hidden Amazonian homeland isle of Themyscira. Each comes across artificial, without any notion that people actually live and breath there. Few of the jokes land -- precisely because their origins don't feel established and genuine (the heart of humor is truth, after all). The villains have no human dimension or motivation, therefore are not a relatable threat. The heroes agency and drive are equally unclear. The stakes are not given proper grounding, and what is given is unnaturally forced.
The mythic Amazonians are a civilization of all female multi-ethnic platonics shaped from clay and brought to life by Zeus. As far as anyone can tell, their cloaked Greek island paradise of Themyscira has only one rule -- its inhabitants must wear incredibly uncomfortable metallic corsets and the shortest of leather skirts at all times (cotton blends are forbidden, I guess). Although we see no evidence, apparently the Amazonians are taught philosophy and over 100 different languages. Curiously they're oblivious to the civilizations that birthed those languages and ideas, or what lie outside their peaceful tranquility -- yet spend the majority of their time training for primeval war anyway. Diana is a "Amazonian Warrior Princess" who fervently espouses the supposed Amazonian high virtue that the destructiveness of war is evil and compassion is the solution -- yet seemingly has no qualm indiscriminately participating in battles she has next to nil understanding of. She must have personally widowed 20 German wives, yet lectures how heinous it is to war. Huh? Then why are you warring? If your sage society of feminist philosophers are so peace loving then why do they seemingly do nothing except practice fighting? Why don't you use your language and reasoning skills to treaty with the poor German grunts long stuck in the muddy trenches instead of simply running over them with death -- since killing is what you're against and all?
The acting performances are mostly good, but I really can't say I felt much chemistry between Diana and her "leading man" Steve Trevor -- perhaps it's emasculation, as Gadot just seems far more autonomous and capable. To his credit, the fine and charming Chris Pine almost makes the clunky character dynamics and dim dialogue sing. Everyone else is a cardboard cutout, and bizarrely so -- their standout oddities and anachronisms remedy character development I suppose. Amongst the prerequisite paper-thin rag-tag team of misfit heroes, there's a drunk singing Scotsman who wears a kilt, and a Native American Indian who wears a feather. At one point Steve Trevor's lady secretary quips that from time-to-time she's up for a bit of fisticuffs -- briefly feigning a Karate chop stance, as if Asian martial arts had in any way permeated the consciousness of turn-of- the-century English ladies. Just preposterous. It's as though the casting director corralled her niece to play Diana as a child -- unfortunate cheerios commercial syndrome of acting by way of chubby cheeks comes across like a pageant brat. There's no sense of her being the thoughtfully resolved rebel that we're supposed to infer her to be, and her features carry no stoic beauty. Not the kid's fault, but ill advised casting nonetheless.
Analysis of the antagonists would be spoilery, but I can assure that it is not done well. All is caricatured in out-of-nowhere logic. And a poor villain, is a poor conflict, which is poor drama -- and that makes for a poor story. Audiences need rogues whose fate they can take relish in, whose dastardly motivations warrant investment in seeing toppled.
Finally, the direction: It's pedestrian at best. Patty Jenkins must have done something right once upon a time because there is certainly a massive constituency that are dead-set on making her a thing. Admitly I've never seen HBO's "Game Of Throwns", but Patty Jenkins' work there was apparently her calling card for helming big spectacle. All I can say is that I'm not terribly inspired to ever delve into that insanely popular tome, due in part to the fact that every film sprung from its progeny has had less than impressive craft. Jenkins compensates for any cohesive design in choreography or kinetics in action sequences with slow-motion (perhaps story writer Zach Snyder's insidious influence?). I'm not saying slow-motion is bad, I'm saying Patty Jenkins uses it badly as a crutch. Whether it be intimate scenes or bombastic action, the rhythm and pacing often felt off throughout. The cinematography was adequate, but nothing worth note. Same for the music score. Serviceable and generic -- that's this movie.
In the end "Wonder Woman" is a fairly innocuous, but also vacuous, diversion. Its most "super" element is its super-hypocrisy of ideals, but... whatever. It's silly and does contain moments of escapists fun. Enjoy.