"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:
"For as big a movie as "Aquaman" is, I could not have had more freedom. I had all the big tools and the budget to paint on a really big canvas, but with the freedom I had on, let’s say, "Saw" or "Insidious." So if the movie works, or doesn’t work, I have no one to blame but myself."
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.