Okay, I'd say the DCU is a dumpster fire. I should hope at this point that's pretty obvious to anyone who frequents this space. With the one exception of Wonder Woman, I would not happily rewatch any of the DCU movies released prior to 2018. Which brings us to the release of Aquaman, and based on prior experience you might expect me to want to avoid this until it hits DVD and I can get it for as little money as possible.
PSYCH! I went and saw it in first-run theaters, on the biggest screen I could gain access to (boy I wish we had an IMAX around here...). There are two reasons for that. A) Jason Momoa's Aquaman was probably my favorite part of Justice League, and B) The trailers made it look cool. Yes, yes; movie trailers work on me very effectively. So, what did I think of Aquaman?
Well, long story short, behind Wonder Woman it's easily number two in the entire DCU!
To be fair, the gap between Wonder Woman (an objectively excellent superhero movie) and the previous number two, Justice League (an objectively confusing dumpster fire of a movie with some great moments) is ENORMOUS. So, sure, Aquaman slots in there easily, but was it actually a good movie? Let's talk about that for a second.
First we need to define "good". The New Oxford American dictionary defines good as an adjective meaning "to be desired or approved of." A secondary definition, that I think fits better with the analysis of fiction, is "having the qualities required for a particular role." If you go back far enough, into proto-Germanic, it's that second one that's probably closest to what the word originally meant. This means that in order for me to tell you whether this movie is 'good', we need to figure out what 'particular role' Aquaman is supposed to fill.
That's pretty easy. It's meant to entertain. This movie isn't a deep treatise into some aspect of morality, neither is it a dramatic look at some fundamental aspect of humanity. There's a little bit in there about judging cultures outside our own, but that's more side-dressing intended to make the conflict feel a touch more real, in service of making the movie more entertaining. So, if the movie is meant to entertain, the question is does it do that well?
Yes. Mostly. When stacked up against all other blockbusters (all of which are primarily intended to entertain before anything else), Aquaman definitely falls in the top half in terms of how well it does this. The methods used will obviously alienate some viewers, but I'd say that by-and-large the movie does a good job of being entertaining to most people.
Look, the fact is, it's not going to be winning any Oscars for Best Picture or Best Actor. Jason Momoa is fabulous, don't get me wrong, but he's not acting. That's sorta just who he is. But I will say that if this movie doesn't at least get nominated for Best Visual Effects, I will have officially lost what respect I've got left for the Academy. The movie is gorgeous to look at, and frankly that's outright a first for the DCU. It's colorful, full of interesting things and excellent visual world building, and even when it's dark it's just vibrant in its use of lighting and contrast. Are there sacrifices in the integrity of the narrative world building made entirely in the interest of "boy that would look dope"? Absolutely there are. But those bits look so dope I had a hard time caring, which is weird for me.
Beyond just looking cool, the movie was fun to watch. The action is paced well, and while the movie is a bit longer than it probably needed to be, it never felt outright dull and managed to avoid even feeling sorta like a drag most of the time. And to combine the movie's two strongest suites, when the action and the cinematography align just so, Aquaman doesn't hesitate to go ahead and pause to let us appreciate the awesomeness that just happened in glorious high-def slow-mo. You might be thinking that doing that frequently might result in some pretty cheesy moments, and you'd be absolutely right. But frankly the movie knew it as well, and it's not ashamed to go with "make 'em laugh" as a method of entertainment.
Speaking of which, Jason Momoa is freaking hilarious. There was more and better quality humor in this movie than in the entire DCU before it, and I loved it. Almost felt like I was watching an MCU movie. Weird.
Are there weaknesses? Sure. The story is predictable, the characters aren't as well developed as they could have been (though the otherwise pretty 2D villain had a lovely display of humanity right at the end of the movie that I really appreciated), it was a touch longer than it needed to be, and it was a bit of a cheese-fest with all the over-the-top action and slow-mo. But after it all I was thoroughly entertained, and so by the definition we established earlier, it was good. Maybe not "see it now and buy it on Blu-ray when it releases" good, but definitely I'd say you want to see this in theaters, if for no other reason than the hair simulations.
No, dead serious. That stuff is technically super impressive. Hundreds of CG artists deserve your movie-going dollars for that achievement alone.
PSYCH! I went and saw it in first-run theaters, on the biggest screen I could gain access to (boy I wish we had an IMAX around here...). There are two reasons for that. A) Jason Momoa's Aquaman was probably my favorite part of Justice League, and B) The trailers made it look cool. Yes, yes; movie trailers work on me very effectively. So, what did I think of Aquaman?
Well, long story short, behind Wonder Woman it's easily number two in the entire DCU!
To be fair, the gap between Wonder Woman (an objectively excellent superhero movie) and the previous number two, Justice League (an objectively confusing dumpster fire of a movie with some great moments) is ENORMOUS. So, sure, Aquaman slots in there easily, but was it actually a good movie? Let's talk about that for a second.
First we need to define "good". The New Oxford American dictionary defines good as an adjective meaning "to be desired or approved of." A secondary definition, that I think fits better with the analysis of fiction, is "having the qualities required for a particular role." If you go back far enough, into proto-Germanic, it's that second one that's probably closest to what the word originally meant. This means that in order for me to tell you whether this movie is 'good', we need to figure out what 'particular role' Aquaman is supposed to fill.
That's pretty easy. It's meant to entertain. This movie isn't a deep treatise into some aspect of morality, neither is it a dramatic look at some fundamental aspect of humanity. There's a little bit in there about judging cultures outside our own, but that's more side-dressing intended to make the conflict feel a touch more real, in service of making the movie more entertaining. So, if the movie is meant to entertain, the question is does it do that well?
Yes. Mostly. When stacked up against all other blockbusters (all of which are primarily intended to entertain before anything else), Aquaman definitely falls in the top half in terms of how well it does this. The methods used will obviously alienate some viewers, but I'd say that by-and-large the movie does a good job of being entertaining to most people.
Look, the fact is, it's not going to be winning any Oscars for Best Picture or Best Actor. Jason Momoa is fabulous, don't get me wrong, but he's not acting. That's sorta just who he is. But I will say that if this movie doesn't at least get nominated for Best Visual Effects, I will have officially lost what respect I've got left for the Academy. The movie is gorgeous to look at, and frankly that's outright a first for the DCU. It's colorful, full of interesting things and excellent visual world building, and even when it's dark it's just vibrant in its use of lighting and contrast. Are there sacrifices in the integrity of the narrative world building made entirely in the interest of "boy that would look dope"? Absolutely there are. But those bits look so dope I had a hard time caring, which is weird for me.
Beyond just looking cool, the movie was fun to watch. The action is paced well, and while the movie is a bit longer than it probably needed to be, it never felt outright dull and managed to avoid even feeling sorta like a drag most of the time. And to combine the movie's two strongest suites, when the action and the cinematography align just so, Aquaman doesn't hesitate to go ahead and pause to let us appreciate the awesomeness that just happened in glorious high-def slow-mo. You might be thinking that doing that frequently might result in some pretty cheesy moments, and you'd be absolutely right. But frankly the movie knew it as well, and it's not ashamed to go with "make 'em laugh" as a method of entertainment.
Speaking of which, Jason Momoa is freaking hilarious. There was more and better quality humor in this movie than in the entire DCU before it, and I loved it. Almost felt like I was watching an MCU movie. Weird.
Are there weaknesses? Sure. The story is predictable, the characters aren't as well developed as they could have been (though the otherwise pretty 2D villain had a lovely display of humanity right at the end of the movie that I really appreciated), it was a touch longer than it needed to be, and it was a bit of a cheese-fest with all the over-the-top action and slow-mo. But after it all I was thoroughly entertained, and so by the definition we established earlier, it was good. Maybe not "see it now and buy it on Blu-ray when it releases" good, but definitely I'd say you want to see this in theaters, if for no other reason than the hair simulations.
No, dead serious. That stuff is technically super impressive. Hundreds of CG artists deserve your movie-going dollars for that achievement alone.
Comments
Post a Comment