Even though Aquaman has surpassed the 1 billion dollar mark in the global box office and is hailed as one of the best DC movies ever made, it still falls flat when it comes to the makings of a good movie. The script, the jokes and some of the music choices are poor. What makes this situation worse is that the director, James Wan, is aware of all of this. As the director of some blockbuster movies such as Furious 7 and SAW, Wan knows what he is doing, and one of the things he is trying to do in Aquaman is cover up for the lackluster script by utilizing impressive camerawork and cinematography. This leaves the viewer disappointed with the movie. The scenes are well composed and nice to look at; however, the content of the movie is hard to endure.
The relationship between Arthur (Aquaman) and Mera, the princess of one of the underwater kingdoms, highlights flaws in the movie’s storyline. Right from the beginning of the movie, it is apparent that these two characters are going to have a romantic relationship in the end. However, the film executes the buildup to the relationship so poorly that viewers have no reaction when the couple finally get together. For example, there are several scenes within the movie where the two characters simply look at each other with slow music playing in the background, instead of… speaking? Another issue with Aquaman besides its script and portrayal of character relationships is Wan’s misplaced creativity. There are some scenes where the camera moves in a way that is unique. However, these scenes do not feel natural. Instead, they reveal that they were shot in a studio, with green-screens and doubles. It is this realization that results in the audience being disconnected and uninvested in the story.
Do not get the title wrong. Aquaman is not a bad movie. In fact, I did have a good time watching it. Compared to the super serious and dark iterations of the DC Cinematic Universe, such as Batman v Superman and Man of Steel, Aquaman is a breath of fresh air that embraces the weird, scale-esque, fish-like gold and green costume and a superhero who is, as Batman puts it, able to “talk to fish.”
Aquaman does not shy from its comic book roots, which makes the movie even better; it is a movie that knows where it comes from. Whether it is the funky yet cool-looking costumes, the surfer bro personality of Jason Momoa that is embodied within Aquaman, or the idea of sea life waging an all-out war against each other, the movie fully embraces these concepts and creates a whole new underwater universe.
With this new world, the color palette is mind-blowing as well. The bright blue of the ocean, the luminescent plants and cities underwater, the bright greens of the coastal cities of Italy and the mesmerizing Sahara desert all captivate the audience and are a nice shift from the dark and gloomy worlds of previous DC movies.
Another big plus for Aquaman is the acting, with Jason Momoa giving a particularly good performance. Even though the script he is given is not great to work with, he still keeps up his energetic yet cool and relatable personality, which makes him more relatable in comparison to his comic book counterpart. It would not be a surprise if DC changed the appearance of Aquaman to make him resemble the real-life actor Momoa a bit more. Besides Momoa, the relationship arc between Aquaman’s parents is a nice overarching story for the whole movie. His parents are the first characters to be introduced and their story starts with the birth of Arthur and ends with his coming of age moment. It is a nice symbol for Arthur leaving his past behind, in peace, to focus on what lies ahead. Overall, Aquaman is a much more complete package compared to DC’s other offerings.
In fact, Aquaman seems to be so rewarding that Warner Bros. has expressed the potential to continue the DC Cinematic Universe after all, even though Justice League, their latest release, was a disaster. This seems to be good news for fans of DC but one should recognize that Aquaman is far from perfect. If DC wants to compete with the juggernaut that is Marvel, it has to realize that it needs to take its time with its characters and provide the time and funds needed to craft stories that would attract the masses.
In short, if you want to have a good time, have something attractive to watch and see James Wan’s take on a superhero film, definitely see Aquaman. However, if you are looking for a good story that has rewatchability, is heartfelt and universal, you are asking too much of Aquaman. •
And still you defended piece of crap movies like The Last Jedi, and overrated average films like Black Phanter!
You are just a hypocrite liar moved by an agenda, the good thing is that people are ceasing to believe in people like you and do not believe anything that comes from your disgusting mouth.
Your last paragraph is the most important one (to watch or not to watch, that is the question) and unfortunately it is poorly written as your characterizations of the movie are ambiguous, e.g., how is fun and rewatchability mutually exclusive, and what exactly is meant by “universal” and how is that a good thing? Also, why is “heartfelt” necessary for a good movie: what about a cerebral movie? According to Box Office Mojo it’s smashing the international market, so one could argue that it’s more universal than a lot of movies, but I don’t think that’s what you mean by universal, and that’s the problem: we don’t know what you mean. The other possibility that I considered is that by universal you mean speaks to a lot of people rather than a small sample of people, but I rejected this because Aquaman actually is a box office juggernaut. I actually now think “universal=when you like it,” and I think such a perspective is extremely childish.
But in the end, none of this matters, your opinion that the movie has bad writing, and my opinion that this critique has bad writing, because we’re both late to the game and can’t influence anyone.