-
Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
-
Please read our Rules & Guidelines
Read BEFORE posting Trades & Request
Aquaman (2018)
- Thread starter Zamros
- Start date
Canon Editor
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,730
- Reaction score
- 80
- Trophy Points
- 53
Well, it seems he didn’t enjoy the movie a whole lot. Early reviews seem to be cautiously-very-optimistic though, which gives me more hope than if they were enthusiastic.
hbenthow
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,609
- Reaction score
- 174
- Trophy Points
- 68
"Aquaman" (2018) immediately starts off with a Jules Verne quote, promptly turns into a Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale, becomes an Edgar Rice Burroughs-style epic fantasy, takes a detour into Indiana Jones territory, goes full-on H. P. Lovecraft, journeys to Jules Verne-land, then returns to Burroughs-world with a bit of Toho influence mixed in, before ending on a note of Andersen again. Oh, and it's marinated in Greek mythology throughout all of that. If that sounds utterly bonkers, that's because it is, and in the most wonderful way. It may be based on a comic book character, but it's pure early 20th century-style pulp in style and execution. If I could describe it in a word, that word would be "whimsy". In terms of throwing in everything but the kitchen sink*, the movie that it most reminds me of is "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow". It's not a self-parody like "Thor: Ragnarok". Although there are tongue in cheek moments, it's mostly played straight. Its "attitude" is "Is this silly? Maybe. Who cares?", rather than "Ha ha, I know this is silly, I'm laughing at it too." It's up to you, the audience, to decide whether or not you're willing to suspend your disbelief and go on this wild ride.
As someone who is a big fan of classic pulp, this movie is an absolute delight for me. It has the feel, pacing, and imagination of a great pulp story. It reminds me for all the world of something that Edgar Rice Burroughs or Edmond Hamilton would have written. Like most pulps, it is formulaic at points. But also like a good pulp story, that doesn't ruin it. Think of it like a game of chess. Each game starts with the same board, the same pieces in the same positions, and the same rules. The same "formula", so to speak. But there is a near-infinite amount of variations within that formula. And it's those variations that make each game feel fresh and new. So it was with pulps, and so it is with "Aquaman". The secret is in creating enough variation within the formula to make it feel fresh. And once the story gets going, it feels like no superhero movie before it. Yes, there are parallels to "Black Panther" and "Thor". But those are just plot similarities. It doesn't feel very much like either of them.
There are a few brief "Justice League" references toward the beginning just to establish exactly where this story fits in the timeline, but beyond that, it's completely standalone. It feels like the singular vision of one director. I fully believe the following statement from James Wan:
I had heard good word-of-mouth about Wan before, but had never seen any of his previous movies. After seeing this one, I can see what everyone was talking about. Few directors would (or could) have gone so utterly whimsical with this story and made it work so well without turning it into a comedy. Most would have A: played it safe and kept things more grounded, B: went the full comedy route like "Guardians of the Galaxy" (daring at the time but safe now), or C: tried to do what Wan did, only to turn it into a mess.
The camera-work and fight choreography are some of the most creative and thrilling that I've seen in a superhero movie since Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy (Wan seems to have some very Raimi-esque sensibilities, maybe due to sharing his horror movie background). The visuals are gorgeous and wildly imaginative. The effects aren't the most realistic that I've ever seen, but that ceases to become an issue once you become immersed in the story. The scope is huge. The movie both looks and feels much bigger than any of the previous DCEU movies. Frankly, it downright dwarfs all of them. It's not so much a typical superhero movie as it is a high-fantasy epic with massive worldbuilding. And it was all done on about 2/3 of the budget of "Justice League".
Jason Momoa is a likable and charismatic lead, and manages to make the oft-ridiculed Aquaman come across as thoroughly formidable and cool. His performance here is better and more interesting than the one he gave in "Justice League". Amber Heard is likewise charismatic as Mera, and has great chemistry with Momoa. She is also better here than in "Justice League" (in her case, much, much better). Patrick Wilson and Yahya Abdul-Mateen II are very good as the villains (especially Wilson, who is given more to do), Nicole Kidman and Temeura Morrison are very good in their limited roles as Aquaman's parents, and Willem Dafoe gives a sprightly performance that proves that villains aren't the only comic book characters that he can play well. Dolph Lundgren isn't given much to do, but he's solid in his limited role. None of the performances felt like a big-name actor taking a paycheck job. Everyone put effort and energy into their performances. There are even two voice roles by legendary classic actors (one being just a cameo, the other more substantial).
The story starts out fairly predictable (I was even predicting a few lines and events before they happened at the beginning), but gets less so as it goes on. By the third act, there's all kinds of delightful craziness coming out of left field. There is time devoted to developing both the heroes and villains. Everyone's motivation is made clear. The story faithfully follows the archetypal hero's journey as laid out by Joseph Campbell. The tone is serious (in the sense of not being a comedy or parody), but very lighthearted with a lot of humor. Much of the humor works, but some bits fall flat. Still, the failed bits of humor aren't enough to seriously derail the movie (if anything there were less jokes that annoyed me here than in "Avengers: Age of Ultron"). Certain tropes that are often considered cheesy are sometimes played straight here, but they are handled with such panache and sincerity that most of them work. Overall, the movie focuses solely on being rollicking, escapist fun, and it succeeds beautifully in that regard, and without sacrificing a well-told story and well-developed cast of characters.
While Aquaman is a fantastical character himself, he is thrown into a world so chock full of fantastical characters, creatures, and realms that he feels less like a superhero and more like the hero of an epic adventure fantasy, going on a quest through a world that often dazzles and amazes even him. This makes for a refreshing change of pace from most other superhero movies.
There are brief references to environmental issues, but they aren't heavy-handed or preachy, and don't overstay their welcome. The way that they are used actually serves the story in a natural way and doesn't feel like political propaganda, nor is it ludicrous in the way that the global warming subplot in Shane Black's "The Predator" was.
None of that is to say that there are no flaws. As I previously mentioned, some of the humor falls flat. Also, most of the pop songs that play now and then are annoying (although I thought that the Roy Orbison song worked pretty well). Some of the dialogue is clunky and/or clichéd. Some of the pacing choices (especially regarding flashbacks) may not be perfect. Some of the setup of Arthur and Mera's relationship is a bit clunky (there's even a bit of corny romantic comedy music in one scene). But for me, all of those things are mere quibbles. I didn't even mind the exposition scenes (despite usually being the first one to complain about exposition, which is one of my biggest gripes with Christopher Nolan), as they felt necessary to set up and explain this huge new fictional universe without bloating the runtime. The movie does so much well that a few annoyances don't significantly damage it. A good fanedit that removes some of the annoyances could make it better, but it's already excellent (albeit flawed) as-is. A good analogy would be "Superman: The Movie". Are the "can you read my mind" sequence, various lines, and the turning back time ending stupid? Sure. But the movie does so much well that its virtues tower above its flaws.
In my opinion, "Aquaman" is now easily the best DCEU movie yet. "Wonder Woman" (previously the best) is good, but the ending is a let-down. "Aquaman" gets better and better as it goes on, with the third act being the best part of all. It's the first one to have all of the significant kinks ironed out.
This movie is the shot in the arm that Warner Brothers and DC need right now. It's a full 180° reversal from how Zack Snyder started the DCEU. "Man of Steel", "Batman v. Superman", and "Suicide Squad" all stay more or less within a certain dark and gritty style. "Wonder Woman" deviated from that style somewhat, but not fully (especially in regard to visuals). "Justice League" attempted changing the formula, but it was a mish-mash of two styles and two directors that didn't fully work. But "Aquaman" was built from the ground up as a colorful, whimsical, pulpy, high-fantasy adventure with a science fiction veneer. It's the one that first proved that a DC movie can be just as bright, colorful, and lighthearted as a Marvel one and be a success from beginning to end.
That's not to imply that all future DC movies should try to emulate this one's style or tone, or that dark DC movies should be off-limits. It just means that DC doesn't have to stick to said dark and gritty style as a rule or to mandate one single style or visual palette for all of their movies in order to be a success. It's proof that DC doesn't have to stay in Zack Snyder's shadow. It proves the merit of giving each character over to a director and letting that director's vision (rather than studio micromanaging) define how that character and his or her adventures are portrayed. Yes, Marvel has done the whole shared universe/top-down planning thing very well, but everyone else that has tried it (including DC/Warner Brothers) has failed miserably at it so far. DC should stand apart from Marvel not by worrying about whether or not their movies are similar to Marvel's in tone or style, but by avoiding a Marvel-like degree of crossover and studio micromanagement. Marvel has been doing the intensively-planned shared universe thing too long and too well; DC can't beat them at their own game.
The reviews that I've seen so far (from fans and critics alike) are mixed. Some people absolutely love it, some find it all right but nothing special, and some think that it's terrible.
One thing that I find odd is that many of those who don't like it criticize it for being too derivative of "Black Panther" and "Thor", yet praise "Wonder Woman" without acknowledging how derivative it is of "Captain America: The First Avenger". Why does "Wonder Woman" get a free pass for being unoriginal when "Aquaman" doesn't? Also, I'm always baffled by the notion (which some people espouse) that a lighthearted, colorful DC movie is somehow "imitating Marvel". Does that mean that "Superman: The Movie" was imitating Marvel? The last time I checked, Marvel doesn't have a copyright on colorful visuals or humor. I also disagree with those who say that there wasn't enough character development. For a pulpy romp like this, there was plenty enough. Even the villains are better-developed than the villains from many critically-praised superhero movies ("Wonder Woman", "Guardians of the Galaxy", "Doctor Strange", etc).
I think that a pretty good test of how you will feel about "Aquaman" would be to answer the following two questions:
1. Do you like early 20th century pulp science fiction or fantasy?
2. Do you find Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies too cheesy?
If you answered yes to question 1, there's a very good chance that you'll like "Aquaman".
If you answered no to question 2, there's also a good chance that you will enjoy it.
If you answered no to question 1, there's a good chance that you won't like it.
If you answered yes to question 2, you almost definitely won't like it.
* Despite the kitchen sink's no-show, a different item of household plumbing makes a notable appearance.
As someone who is a big fan of classic pulp, this movie is an absolute delight for me. It has the feel, pacing, and imagination of a great pulp story. It reminds me for all the world of something that Edgar Rice Burroughs or Edmond Hamilton would have written. Like most pulps, it is formulaic at points. But also like a good pulp story, that doesn't ruin it. Think of it like a game of chess. Each game starts with the same board, the same pieces in the same positions, and the same rules. The same "formula", so to speak. But there is a near-infinite amount of variations within that formula. And it's those variations that make each game feel fresh and new. So it was with pulps, and so it is with "Aquaman". The secret is in creating enough variation within the formula to make it feel fresh. And once the story gets going, it feels like no superhero movie before it. Yes, there are parallels to "Black Panther" and "Thor". But those are just plot similarities. It doesn't feel very much like either of them.
There are a few brief "Justice League" references toward the beginning just to establish exactly where this story fits in the timeline, but beyond that, it's completely standalone. It feels like the singular vision of one director. I fully believe the following statement from James Wan:
I had heard good word-of-mouth about Wan before, but had never seen any of his previous movies. After seeing this one, I can see what everyone was talking about. Few directors would (or could) have gone so utterly whimsical with this story and made it work so well without turning it into a comedy. Most would have A: played it safe and kept things more grounded, B: went the full comedy route like "Guardians of the Galaxy" (daring at the time but safe now), or C: tried to do what Wan did, only to turn it into a mess.
The camera-work and fight choreography are some of the most creative and thrilling that I've seen in a superhero movie since Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy (Wan seems to have some very Raimi-esque sensibilities, maybe due to sharing his horror movie background). The visuals are gorgeous and wildly imaginative. The effects aren't the most realistic that I've ever seen, but that ceases to become an issue once you become immersed in the story. The scope is huge. The movie both looks and feels much bigger than any of the previous DCEU movies. Frankly, it downright dwarfs all of them. It's not so much a typical superhero movie as it is a high-fantasy epic with massive worldbuilding. And it was all done on about 2/3 of the budget of "Justice League".
Jason Momoa is a likable and charismatic lead, and manages to make the oft-ridiculed Aquaman come across as thoroughly formidable and cool. His performance here is better and more interesting than the one he gave in "Justice League". Amber Heard is likewise charismatic as Mera, and has great chemistry with Momoa. She is also better here than in "Justice League" (in her case, much, much better). Patrick Wilson and Yahya Abdul-Mateen II are very good as the villains (especially Wilson, who is given more to do), Nicole Kidman and Temeura Morrison are very good in their limited roles as Aquaman's parents, and Willem Dafoe gives a sprightly performance that proves that villains aren't the only comic book characters that he can play well. Dolph Lundgren isn't given much to do, but he's solid in his limited role. None of the performances felt like a big-name actor taking a paycheck job. Everyone put effort and energy into their performances. There are even two voice roles by legendary classic actors (one being just a cameo, the other more substantial).
The story starts out fairly predictable (I was even predicting a few lines and events before they happened at the beginning), but gets less so as it goes on. By the third act, there's all kinds of delightful craziness coming out of left field. There is time devoted to developing both the heroes and villains. Everyone's motivation is made clear. The story faithfully follows the archetypal hero's journey as laid out by Joseph Campbell. The tone is serious (in the sense of not being a comedy or parody), but very lighthearted with a lot of humor. Much of the humor works, but some bits fall flat. Still, the failed bits of humor aren't enough to seriously derail the movie (if anything there were less jokes that annoyed me here than in "Avengers: Age of Ultron"). Certain tropes that are often considered cheesy are sometimes played straight here, but they are handled with such panache and sincerity that most of them work. Overall, the movie focuses solely on being rollicking, escapist fun, and it succeeds beautifully in that regard, and without sacrificing a well-told story and well-developed cast of characters.
While Aquaman is a fantastical character himself, he is thrown into a world so chock full of fantastical characters, creatures, and realms that he feels less like a superhero and more like the hero of an epic adventure fantasy, going on a quest through a world that often dazzles and amazes even him. This makes for a refreshing change of pace from most other superhero movies.
There are brief references to environmental issues, but they aren't heavy-handed or preachy, and don't overstay their welcome. The way that they are used actually serves the story in a natural way and doesn't feel like political propaganda, nor is it ludicrous in the way that the global warming subplot in Shane Black's "The Predator" was.
None of that is to say that there are no flaws. As I previously mentioned, some of the humor falls flat. Also, most of the pop songs that play now and then are annoying (although I thought that the Roy Orbison song worked pretty well). Some of the dialogue is clunky and/or clichéd. Some of the pacing choices (especially regarding flashbacks) may not be perfect. Some of the setup of Arthur and Mera's relationship is a bit clunky (there's even a bit of corny romantic comedy music in one scene). But for me, all of those things are mere quibbles. I didn't even mind the exposition scenes (despite usually being the first one to complain about exposition, which is one of my biggest gripes with Christopher Nolan), as they felt necessary to set up and explain this huge new fictional universe without bloating the runtime. The movie does so much well that a few annoyances don't significantly damage it. A good fanedit that removes some of the annoyances could make it better, but it's already excellent (albeit flawed) as-is. A good analogy would be "Superman: The Movie". Are the "can you read my mind" sequence, various lines, and the turning back time ending stupid? Sure. But the movie does so much well that its virtues tower above its flaws.
In my opinion, "Aquaman" is now easily the best DCEU movie yet. "Wonder Woman" (previously the best) is good, but the ending is a let-down. "Aquaman" gets better and better as it goes on, with the third act being the best part of all. It's the first one to have all of the significant kinks ironed out.
This movie is the shot in the arm that Warner Brothers and DC need right now. It's a full 180° reversal from how Zack Snyder started the DCEU. "Man of Steel", "Batman v. Superman", and "Suicide Squad" all stay more or less within a certain dark and gritty style. "Wonder Woman" deviated from that style somewhat, but not fully (especially in regard to visuals). "Justice League" attempted changing the formula, but it was a mish-mash of two styles and two directors that didn't fully work. But "Aquaman" was built from the ground up as a colorful, whimsical, pulpy, high-fantasy adventure with a science fiction veneer. It's the one that first proved that a DC movie can be just as bright, colorful, and lighthearted as a Marvel one and be a success from beginning to end.
That's not to imply that all future DC movies should try to emulate this one's style or tone, or that dark DC movies should be off-limits. It just means that DC doesn't have to stick to said dark and gritty style as a rule or to mandate one single style or visual palette for all of their movies in order to be a success. It's proof that DC doesn't have to stay in Zack Snyder's shadow. It proves the merit of giving each character over to a director and letting that director's vision (rather than studio micromanaging) define how that character and his or her adventures are portrayed. Yes, Marvel has done the whole shared universe/top-down planning thing very well, but everyone else that has tried it (including DC/Warner Brothers) has failed miserably at it so far. DC should stand apart from Marvel not by worrying about whether or not their movies are similar to Marvel's in tone or style, but by avoiding a Marvel-like degree of crossover and studio micromanagement. Marvel has been doing the intensively-planned shared universe thing too long and too well; DC can't beat them at their own game.
The reviews that I've seen so far (from fans and critics alike) are mixed. Some people absolutely love it, some find it all right but nothing special, and some think that it's terrible.
One thing that I find odd is that many of those who don't like it criticize it for being too derivative of "Black Panther" and "Thor", yet praise "Wonder Woman" without acknowledging how derivative it is of "Captain America: The First Avenger". Why does "Wonder Woman" get a free pass for being unoriginal when "Aquaman" doesn't? Also, I'm always baffled by the notion (which some people espouse) that a lighthearted, colorful DC movie is somehow "imitating Marvel". Does that mean that "Superman: The Movie" was imitating Marvel? The last time I checked, Marvel doesn't have a copyright on colorful visuals or humor. I also disagree with those who say that there wasn't enough character development. For a pulpy romp like this, there was plenty enough. Even the villains are better-developed than the villains from many critically-praised superhero movies ("Wonder Woman", "Guardians of the Galaxy", "Doctor Strange", etc).
I think that a pretty good test of how you will feel about "Aquaman" would be to answer the following two questions:
1. Do you like early 20th century pulp science fiction or fantasy?
2. Do you find Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies too cheesy?
If you answered yes to question 1, there's a very good chance that you'll like "Aquaman".
If you answered no to question 2, there's also a good chance that you will enjoy it.
If you answered no to question 1, there's a good chance that you won't like it.
If you answered yes to question 2, you almost definitely won't like it.
* Despite the kitchen sink's no-show, a different item of household plumbing makes a notable appearance.
Canon Editor
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,730
- Reaction score
- 80
- Trophy Points
- 53
Loved your review! Thank you for that. I personally can’t wait to see it. Wan’s work on “Aquaman”, his comments along with those by Momoa and Defoe (the latter’s regarding the similarities between this and Raimi’s work on Spider-Man) have given me hope for it. I didn’t love Thor, but I am planning to see it again. As good as some MCU movies have been (in particular Iron Man, Winter Soldier, Homecoming, Black Panther), I think very few have been unique like the first Superman, or Raimi’s Spider-Man films, or even Burton’s Batmans or Shyamalan’s Unbreakable. If this is what we get from a “director-driven” superhero movie, I’m all in for the ride!
Canon Editor
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,730
- Reaction score
- 80
- Trophy Points
- 53
Happy birthday then, @"jrWHAG42" !
- Messages
- 8,321
- Reaction score
- 2,451
- Trophy Points
- 168
Just saw it...
LOVED IT!
And so did the audience I saw it with judging by the fact most of us APPLAUDED AND CHEERED at the end.
There is not much I can say that @"hbenthow" did not already cover in his excellent review.
I do disagree with those who say the script/movie is a mess. As reviewer Chris Stuckman noted, everything in this movie... every framed sequence, every over the top pose, every piece of comic booky dialogue...everything... is DELIBERATE. James Wan is an amazing filmmaker and storyteller, and this is clearly his over the top love letter to cartoons, anime, video games and comic books. This movie joyously embraces it's source material, both it's pathos and silliness. Does it go too far at times? Maybe. I suppose it comes down to your taste and what you want from a comic book movie. This movie is not self-important like Nolan's Batman films, but neither is it demographically safe like most Marvel movies. What it is for me, is pure FUN. Flawed? Sure. But it is not a mess.
BOTH THUMBS WAY, WAY UP!!!
I think I might dig out my copy of Mercy Reef now.
http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FPWW6DLMp0[/video]
side thought: I wonder if based on the box office success of Aquaman, if Momoa will another kick at the Conan can?
LOVED IT!
And so did the audience I saw it with judging by the fact most of us APPLAUDED AND CHEERED at the end.
There is not much I can say that @"hbenthow" did not already cover in his excellent review.
I do disagree with those who say the script/movie is a mess. As reviewer Chris Stuckman noted, everything in this movie... every framed sequence, every over the top pose, every piece of comic booky dialogue...everything... is DELIBERATE. James Wan is an amazing filmmaker and storyteller, and this is clearly his over the top love letter to cartoons, anime, video games and comic books. This movie joyously embraces it's source material, both it's pathos and silliness. Does it go too far at times? Maybe. I suppose it comes down to your taste and what you want from a comic book movie. This movie is not self-important like Nolan's Batman films, but neither is it demographically safe like most Marvel movies. What it is for me, is pure FUN. Flawed? Sure. But it is not a mess.
BOTH THUMBS WAY, WAY UP!!!
I think I might dig out my copy of Mercy Reef now.
http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FPWW6DLMp0[/video]
side thought: I wonder if based on the box office success of Aquaman, if Momoa will another kick at the Conan can?
Nic
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,696
- Reaction score
- 106
- Trophy Points
- 68
I had a great time seeing this movie, really reminded me a lot of The Mummy from the 90s in terms of pulpy action adventure like @"hbenthow" mentioned. I also really appreciated that the genuine, emotional moments that were there were not undercut by bathos/an ill-timed joke (one instance not withstanding). My only problem (aside from Black Manta feeling a tad tacked on)
Was how Arthur succeeded due solely from his ability to talk to sea creatures. The fact that he can is not the problem, but that he seems to be the only Atlantean who can, as that's the only way to stop the beast down beow. Is it due to being a half-human hybrid, or due to random genetic chance? Either option just comes across as hackneyed, chosen one garbage. Just saying, if we saw Orm or whoever using sea creatures as pets or slaves, I could buy the story better because Arthur would be the only one to not use his powers selfishly.
Canon Editor
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,730
- Reaction score
- 80
- Trophy Points
- 53
Finally got around to seeing this.
First of all, I must say this: I love movies. And I love good movies. Not just good movies, but truly directed, well scripted, heart-fulfilling, thought-provoking movies. Movies that feel tight, honest and dedicated to one, cinematographic vision.
I am also a long-time lover of superhero movies. Yet, because and in spite of this, I do not like Marvel. My favourite superhero movies are Raimi’s first two Spider-Men, Burton’s Batmen, Unbreakable, Wonder Woman, X2, Days of Future Past and Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy. For how flawed they may be (and I don’t see major flaws that can outweigh their positives) they feel like true movies that have something to say. But I’m not here to spoil the party for anyone; this is just my opinion.
Well, I was really curious about Aquaman. I had interest in seeing where James Wan would go. I liked his responsibility, his elegancy in crafting this multi-layered, grandiose and sweeping world. I truly liked Arthur and Mera’s character and their characterizations. I liked the story, which felt marvellous and emotional. I liked the ideas behind the worlds and scenarios. What truly took me out of it, were the dialogue. Too much dialogue, too bad.This is the real problem of the movie, in my opinion.
Even though the CGI felt clunky at times, it truly isn’t important. Nonetheless, the camera movements were often tainted in a plastic feel that didn’t truly make me immerse into them. The ideas and execution were elegant, though.
The pulp feel is truly there, and the fact the movie doesn’t take itself too seriously is good - exactly as someone prieviously noted - as it is not making fun at itself, but it is having a lot of fun.
In conclusion, even though I did have problems with the film, and it isn’t as good as I expected it to be, I liked its bold approach to its varied and rich storytelling. Something I hadn’t seen in a long time.
(And sorry to everybody reading for the extremely useless long post). Love to all
First of all, I must say this: I love movies. And I love good movies. Not just good movies, but truly directed, well scripted, heart-fulfilling, thought-provoking movies. Movies that feel tight, honest and dedicated to one, cinematographic vision.
I am also a long-time lover of superhero movies. Yet, because and in spite of this, I do not like Marvel. My favourite superhero movies are Raimi’s first two Spider-Men, Burton’s Batmen, Unbreakable, Wonder Woman, X2, Days of Future Past and Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy. For how flawed they may be (and I don’t see major flaws that can outweigh their positives) they feel like true movies that have something to say. But I’m not here to spoil the party for anyone; this is just my opinion.
Well, I was really curious about Aquaman. I had interest in seeing where James Wan would go. I liked his responsibility, his elegancy in crafting this multi-layered, grandiose and sweeping world. I truly liked Arthur and Mera’s character and their characterizations. I liked the story, which felt marvellous and emotional. I liked the ideas behind the worlds and scenarios. What truly took me out of it, were the dialogue. Too much dialogue, too bad.This is the real problem of the movie, in my opinion.
Even though the CGI felt clunky at times, it truly isn’t important. Nonetheless, the camera movements were often tainted in a plastic feel that didn’t truly make me immerse into them. The ideas and execution were elegant, though.
The pulp feel is truly there, and the fact the movie doesn’t take itself too seriously is good - exactly as someone prieviously noted - as it is not making fun at itself, but it is having a lot of fun.
In conclusion, even though I did have problems with the film, and it isn’t as good as I expected it to be, I liked its bold approach to its varied and rich storytelling. Something I hadn’t seen in a long time.
(And sorry to everybody reading for the extremely useless long post). Love to all
- Messages
- 1,843
- Reaction score
- 12
- Trophy Points
- 53
Canon Editor said:
Everybody is certainly welcome to their own opinion and to like what they want. That being said, it seems like you're implying the 20 MCU films from 14 different directors don't have much to say? I would agree with you for sure on some of them but that seems like a broad brush with which to paint that much art. You can dislike many, many things about Black Panther and its execution, for example, but you cannot say it doesn't have something to say. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your criticism, if so, sorry.
I agree with you that all the movies you mentioned as your favorites are very good superhero films with lots to say.
EDIT: Uh, just realized this is the Aquaman thread. Aquaman was decent, pulpy fun, and a big step in the right direction for the DCEU IMO (let talented directors make different kinds of movies seems like a good gameplan to me).
- Messages
- 4,047
- Reaction score
- 1,052
- Trophy Points
- 138
Yeah, have you seen all of the films in the franchise? I could definitely see that judgement as a broad judgement from only seeing a handful, or just hearing about them, but there are some in there that are truly meaningful and good. Like Blank Panther, as stated above, or the Guardians of the Galaxy films. My personal favorites are Antman and Incredible Hulk, but most would disagree. But disagreeing is the thing, you're free to have your opinion. Heck, I'd say I personally enjoyed Aquaman more than any MCU movie. So maybe I'm not the best to defend Marvel.
Aquaman was great. I liked it. It was fun.
Aquaman was great. I liked it. It was fun.
Canon Editor
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,730
- Reaction score
- 80
- Trophy Points
- 53
I know that that may have seemed too harsh. I actually enjoyed Black Panther the most out of the MCU movies. More often than not, I have problems with the screenplay and execution. What I mean is, that when they have something to say (Iron Man, The Winter Soldier, Civil War, Black Panther) half of the times some elements in their scripts betray what seems to be the tone of the movie. In Civil War, I don’t believe the conflict because the airport scene (what a dull setting; I guess it helps the narrative somewhat, even though it is not set up or has any consequence) is too much fun and all the consequences are hollow. The Winter Soldier felt real, appropriately. It told something and it told it well. I liked that.
In Iron Man, the title character decides to punish the people who deal his weapons and use them for killing… with his weapons by killing them himself.
Yes, perhaps it does play into a ten-movie narrative, but I’m not interested. A movie should feel complete, and I don’t believe the movie if it doesn’t have any consequence when it deals with killing, no matter what evil those who have been killed may have done.
I loved Homecoming because its tone was true to its nature, and it committed to it. I had other problems with Guardians of the Galaxy, for example.
Now, I didn’t mean to offend anyone, obviously. I like diversity, and like the genre to receive so much attention.
Back on topic! In conclusion, believe Aquaman is a flawed movie that stays true to its nature and its tone up to the end of the line.
In Iron Man, the title character decides to punish the people who deal his weapons and use them for killing… with his weapons by killing them himself.
Yes, perhaps it does play into a ten-movie narrative, but I’m not interested. A movie should feel complete, and I don’t believe the movie if it doesn’t have any consequence when it deals with killing, no matter what evil those who have been killed may have done.
I loved Homecoming because its tone was true to its nature, and it committed to it. I had other problems with Guardians of the Galaxy, for example.
Now, I didn’t mean to offend anyone, obviously. I like diversity, and like the genre to receive so much attention.
Back on topic! In conclusion, believe Aquaman is a flawed movie that stays true to its nature and its tone up to the end of the line.
- Messages
- 1,843
- Reaction score
- 12
- Trophy Points
- 53
Canon Editor said:
Right on, that makes more sense. And if MCU movies generally didn't work for me, I wouldn't watch them all, anyway. I agree with what you're saying for the most part (MCU movies have trouble with real dramatic stakes, and almost all movies about people with weapons have the contradiction you said about Iron Man), it's just that the general themes, for the most part direction, and the acting gives me something to enjoy about most of them. Turns out all our opinions are more nuanced than the short posts we post on here, eh? I hope my post didn't feel like an attack, I just wanted to understand your post better.
Also, Aquaman remains totally fine.
Canon Editor
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,730
- Reaction score
- 80
- Trophy Points
- 53
Absolutely. I'm happy we reached out to each other in a democratic and constructive manner. Thank you, @"thecuddlyninja". Again, I'm not forgetting the positives of the MCU, I'm just thinking about their power as movies in and of themselves,and not as comic book movies, which is for me lesser than the ones of the other movies, such as the ones I have mentioned. I have a ton of respect for Ang Lee's Hulk too, for example, as boring as it may be.
Anyway, I'm not trying to condemn their enjoyment level, at all. I understand why people enjoy them. I find their appeal very similar to the one the James Bond movies have had during the sixties up to the 80s (then things sort of changed, the character got slowly reinvented and we got not only one of James Bond's better movies, but a very great movie in general in Casino Royale). Out of the 25 films in the franchise, I think very few deserve the recognition of true, well-directed, well-structured and scripted movies, but all the other ones are very very enjoyable all right!
I actually tend to believe The Incredible Hulk to be one of the best Marvel Studios has pulled out. Not amazing, but a pretty good movie. Next to The Winter Soldier, Spider-Man: Homecoming and Black Panther I believe it is one of the best. I think many people tend to diregard it as it doesn't really fit in with the rest of the timeline.
I have seen the Guardian of the Galaxy movies. They're fine, but I believe they're sort of weak. I enjoy the first one when I'm not thinking too much; I find myself disappointed when I try watching it with a critical mind.
Exactly, the final moments of Black Panther (as in Killmonger's goodbye) did it for me, but the third act wasn't that good really. I know Wonder Woman is accused of having a weak third act too, but I honestly find it is a natural one. Can't say that for other movies.
We're really getting off topic here, guys. Let's keep the focus on Aquaman!
Cheers to all!
Anyway, I'm not trying to condemn their enjoyment level, at all. I understand why people enjoy them. I find their appeal very similar to the one the James Bond movies have had during the sixties up to the 80s (then things sort of changed, the character got slowly reinvented and we got not only one of James Bond's better movies, but a very great movie in general in Casino Royale). Out of the 25 films in the franchise, I think very few deserve the recognition of true, well-directed, well-structured and scripted movies, but all the other ones are very very enjoyable all right!
jrWHAG42 said:
I actually tend to believe The Incredible Hulk to be one of the best Marvel Studios has pulled out. Not amazing, but a pretty good movie. Next to The Winter Soldier, Spider-Man: Homecoming and Black Panther I believe it is one of the best. I think many people tend to diregard it as it doesn't really fit in with the rest of the timeline.
I have seen the Guardian of the Galaxy movies. They're fine, but I believe they're sort of weak. I enjoy the first one when I'm not thinking too much; I find myself disappointed when I try watching it with a critical mind.
Zamros said:jrWHAG42 said:
Hooray! I found the other person that likes The Incredible Hulk!
As for the rest of the MCU, if they can just make a film that doesn't have a terrible third act, that'd be great.
Exactly, the final moments of Black Panther (as in Killmonger's goodbye) did it for me, but the third act wasn't that good really. I know Wonder Woman is accused of having a weak third act too, but I honestly find it is a natural one. Can't say that for other movies.
We're really getting off topic here, guys. Let's keep the focus on Aquaman!
Cheers to all!
- Messages
- 4,047
- Reaction score
- 1,052
- Trophy Points
- 138
Zamros said:jrWHAG42 said:
Hooray! I found the other person that likes The Incredible Hulk!
I haven't seen the theatrical cut in a while, but a few months ago I watched @"tomahawk" 's extended edition, and I just fell in love. Or maybe I just really like Edward Norton.
hbenthow
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,609
- Reaction score
- 174
- Trophy Points
- 68
I had recognized a couple of the King Arthur parallels right off, but it wasn't until I read the article linked to below (which contains what some might consider mild spoilers) that I realized that "Aquaman" is more or less a straight-up retelling of the King Arthur legends, to almost the same degree that "Forbidden Planet" is a retelling of Shakespeare's "The Tempest".
Aquaman succeeds by leaning into a very different kind of source material. - SyFy
Aquaman succeeds by leaning into a very different kind of source material. - SyFy
Arthur Curry = King Arthur. (The similarly in name is obvious, as Mera even calls him "King Arthur of Atlantis" at the end, but there are other parallels, such as him being the illegitimate son of a royal and destined to become the leader of said royal's kingdom.)
Queen Atlanna = Uther Pendragon.
Atlan's trident = Excalibur. (I had picked up on that one right away, but only to the degree that I recognized that both the trident and Thor's hammer are clearly influenced by Excalibur.)
Karathen = The Lady of the Lake.
Vulko = Merlin.
Mera = A cross between Guinevere and Morgan le Fay.
Aquaman brings peace between the land and sea = King Arthur brings peace between the Christians and Pagans.
Queen Atlanna = Uther Pendragon.
Atlan's trident = Excalibur. (I had picked up on that one right away, but only to the degree that I recognized that both the trident and Thor's hammer are clearly influenced by Excalibur.)
Karathen = The Lady of the Lake.
Vulko = Merlin.
Mera = A cross between Guinevere and Morgan le Fay.
Aquaman brings peace between the land and sea = King Arthur brings peace between the Christians and Pagans.