Production for a Wonder Woman movie started in 1995, and it went through several rewrites, and several potential directors, including The Avengers Josh Whedon, who left the project because of creative differences. After 22 years, the final product is very good, and probably about as good as they could make it, although it seems to me that the source material detracts from the overall effect.
Diana is one of many Amazon women living on the island of Themyscira, who were created by the gods to protect the world from Ares, the god of war. When Steve Trevor crashes his plane near the island, Diana rescues him from drowning. He tells her that the entire world is engaged in a war. She thinks that Ares must be responsible for this conflagration, so she leaves the island with Trevor to look for Ares with the intention of killing him.
Once off the island, Diana is at first a fish out of water, until she gets a chance to fight alongside the Allies during World War I, where in a key scene she suddenly takes charge. Much of this doesn't seem very believable, but it is a superhero movie, so we make allowances.
Although this is part of the Wonder Woman story, the original comic book takes place during World War II. Why change the story? I think because Trevor is looking to destroy a German weapon of mass destruction, which is a new type of poison gas. Therefore, it would be hard to have any kind of moral clarity when talking about weapons of mass destruction during World War II, because the country that actually developed a weapon of mass destruction, the atomic bomb, was the United States.
Diana kills many enemy soldiers, mostly in the defense of herself or others. However, I have a problem with all this killing, because I figure that superheroes are normally above this kind of thing. This makes the movie feel like just a war film at first, until the end where we get a battle between gods.
Prior to the release of the movie, there were some special screenings just for women, as if the film makes some sort of feminist statement because Diana is a very strong feminine character. However, I don't think that the outfits worn by the Amazon women, which I am sure are designed to attract a male audience, are particularly empowering to women.
At one point Diana makes an observation that Trevor treats his secretary like a slave. My initial thought that this was a criticism of employment in general, and then I realized that this is a feminist statement about women being subservient to men. This comment is treated in a light hearted fashion, showing Dianna's naiveté, because Trevor's secretary seems to be very happy with her employment. So the film sends a confusing message.
Gal Godat and Chris Pine are both fantastic as the two leads. I think that Chris Pine, who plays a young James T. Kirk in the Star Trek reboot films, looks here more like a young Captain Kirk than he ever has