Disclaimer: I think that Aquaman, as a character, is actually pretty cool; even though most media pundits like to give him a hard time (sometimes justifiably), and he's the guy who everyone loves to hate. Despite this, however, he's clearly more powerful and interesting than half of the characters in Infinity War. (I'm looking at you, Bucky.) In short, the fact that Aquaman as a movie blows harder than a lifeguard inflating a survival tube has very little to do with the title character himself. Indeed, the only way Aquaman could have been worse is if Zack Snyder had directed it.
One of the few praises given to Aquaman is that it is visually impressive. This is nonsense. The effects look like a sad hybrid of the Gungan Underwater City from The Phantom Menace and Pandora from Avatar. This does not mean that Aquaman's effects are not generated well, nor does it mean that plenty of movies aren't visually ridiculous. However, this does mean that the computer-generated objects and landscapes in Aquaman are so gravely idiotic that they hinder any possibly objective admiration for how well they were created in the first place. Furthermore, when every damn scene is so heavily dependent on CGI, watching the movie becomes insufferable.
You might say, "but Eric, Avatar relies upon CGI just as much as Aquaman." Right--and Avatar looks incredible. This is what we'd call a statistical outlier, and it should by no means be judged by a general standard. It is correct that as a general rule, a movie is better without constant CGI. The fact that Avatar is a rare exception does not mean we should forego this standard. Plus, Avatar was executed quite well; and even though it's a movie everyone loves to hate (and it does have its problems), it's still an example of terrific filmmaking.
Similarly, Aquaman fails miserably at worldbuilding and storytelling, especially when compared with a good sci-fi movie like Avatar. Regarding worldbuilding specifically, Aquaman is virtually nonexistent. Whereas good sci-fi provides intelligent scenes that are demonstrative of the stakes and rules of the established world; Aquaman gives lazy expositional narration that proves to serve nothing by the movie's end. This is because everything which was explained within the narration was furtherly demonstrated with events. Why did you tell me all that nonsense if you were just going to show me anyway?! Do you think I'm dense?! Apparently so, because you decided to go with a "show and tell" approach.
It seems appropriate to segway into Aquaman's failure at storytelling because worldbuilding and storytelling should (and do) go hand-in-hand. The plot of Aquaman has so much nonsense happening all at once, and there's no good reason for any of it. The central conflict is bearingless and ultimately pointless; a side plot has absolutely no bearing on anyone; which was so unconvincing that even other characters weren't buying it. And not only was the very existence of these story threads absurd, but the execution was so farcical and asinine that the plot itself seemed intelligent. The entire journey was nothing more than a cluster of random events trying to pass as a narrative.
Since the entire movie can serve as the poster child for bad writing, the dialogue cannot be unaddressed. It's genuinely hard to explain just how cringe-worthy and pathetic this dialogue is. I'm aware that superhero movies are generally meant to appeal to younger audiences, but this is just sad. Besides, Marvel's one-liners are largely charismatic and frequently hilarious. Aquaman, on the other hand, reads like a failed network sitcom that couldn't even air on Nick at Night. I kid you not--every scene or conversation ends with a one-liner that lands about as well as the FedEx plane in Cast Away.
Marvel's sarcastic one-liners may fall flat occasionally, but they can also be excellent and quotable. Whereas Iron Man and Drax give us classics like, "Doth mother know you weareth her drapes?" And, "I'll do YOU one better: WHY is Gamora?" Aquaman gives us, "You could've just peed on it." Yep--you read that right. It's a massive blockbuster movie with a $160 million budget and several professional writers, and the best they could come up with is, "You could've just peed on it." Thanks for nothing, you useless reptile.
That was easily the worst culprit, but do you really want to know how bad the script was? It managed to ruin Jason Momoa and Nicole Kidman! Nicole Kidman is one of the finest actresses Hollywood has to offer, and she has provided some of the most wonderful performances I've seen. Unfortunately, she's also chosen several roles that are mindless cash-grabs which are undeserving of her talent. You deserved better, Nicole. Jason Momoa may not have as prominent of a repertoire but he was excellent in Game of Thrones. He can be charismatic, funny, brutal, and dramatic; but Aquaman reduces him to a wanna-be Robert Downey Jr. Such a shame.
Dolph Lundgren and Patrick Wilson are also in this thing. Spare me. I also like Willem Dafoe, but his role could have been played by a stormtrooper and no one would have known the difference.
But you know what made even the writing seem bearable? The freaking sound mixing. The only thing that pained my ears more than the demonstrative script was the excruciating eardrum shiv that was the sound editing. This garbage makes Christopher Nolan's movies seem silent. Seriously, though--every damn scene had a bass drop that rattled the room like oversized subwoofers rattle the trunk of a gym boy's Subaru. Why must you torture me?
*sigh...Aquaman may have made a billion dollars (literally), but it's nothing worth giving two cents about. It may not be as bad as Batman v. Superman, but what is? Besides, the DCU was dead long ago anyway. In an ideal world, we'd all stop celebrating and paying for mindless, unimaginative, unintelligent mediocrity and start to fill our screens (and minds) with something of actual substance. But we won't. We'll just keep paying inordinate amounts of hard-earned dollars to brand-names that we think will finally be done right. The quality of the film industry is going the way of Independent George, and we're all letting it happen.
Stay home--Aquaman is a 35%, and should immediately be sent to its rightful place at the
Pawn Shop.
Oh, and yes--Jason Momoa is shirtless in it. Yet he was shirtless only long enough for the men to feel moderately self-conscious and for the women to feel sexually frustrated. Way to go, movie. You even found a way to ruin Jason Momoa's shirtlessness.
Comments
Post a Comment