Skip to main content

Something something trident.

Aquaman
(2018)

(SPOILERS) If Aquaman has a problem – although it actually has two – it’s the problem of the bloated blockbuster. There's just too much of it. And the more-more-more element eventual becomes wearing, even when most of that more-more-more is, on a scene-by-scene basis, terrifically executed. If there's one thing this movie proves above all else, it's that you can let director James Wan loose in any given sandpit and he’ll make an above-and-beyond castle out of it. Aquaman isn't a classic, but it isn’t for want of his trying.


One of the biggest compliments I can give the picture is that Wan for the most part really does make the inherent corniness of much (all?) of the plotting, characters and dialogue work for the its greater good in a way only someone who understands how George Lucas playing it straight in Star Wars was fundamental to its success could. 


And there's real artistry here too, both in terms of the construction of the action sequence and in the use of CGI, that you just don't get generally observe in the average blockbuster. A set piece – and there are a lot of set pieces – in Sicily, so an Arthur out of water, is giddily virtuoso as Wan zooms in and out from separate slices of rooftop (and ceiling-crashing) mayhem involving Arthur (Jason Momoa) and Mera (Amber Heard) respectively. It's so confidently, effortlessly impressive, I had to catch myself at one point realising a whole part of it was devoted to an incidental antagonist running through wall after wall after wall below in order to catch up with Mera above. 


Soon after, the duo leap into a Lovecraftian abyss (nicely prefigured, Raimi style, by a foregrounded copy of The Dulwich Horror in the prologue) as Trench creature upon Trench creature piles upon their boat; as they descend with a flaming flare for protection, the ocean forms a bubble of the multitudinous creatures around them. It’s an extraordinary visual, and a delight that Wan has the freedom to bring his greater artistic sensibility over from his horrors (the mis en scene of The Further in Insidious, for example) to a lavish blockbuster (certainly, while I had a blast with Fast & Furious 7, it didn’t allow him this degree of licence). 


We’re an hour into the movie before the Indy/National Treasure quest begins, during which we've had a luxury prologue concerning Aquaman's origins, his talking to the fishies (mercifully The Phantom Menaceelement is dispensed with quickly), the origins of Black Manta (Yayha Abdul-Mateen III gets an amazingly cool costume, comic-booky in all the right ways, but he's entirely handicapped by the most generic character in a movie overflowing with generic characters), establishing the antagonistic agenda of Arthur's half-brother King Orm (Patrick Wilson, fine, but not especially indelible) by way of a false-flag attempt to bring about war with the humans (although, in this case, one has to agree with Orm that we're entirely culpable for shitting all over his oceans) and a hasty challenge to the throne by Arthur that sees him sent packing in the manner of any good hero's journey (the movie’s an embarrassment of riches as far as fights are concerned); Aquaman is bursting at the seams, such that you feel there's already been a movie's worth of action before Arthur leaps out of a plane over the Sahara. Which amounts to poor structuring really, unless you want your main audience for home viewing… which in the long run, I guess it probably will be.


Later, we're served an abridged history of Atlantis (taking in such elements as its destruction through misuse of energy devices and mutation of Atlantean forms, both of which have some basis in the Edgar Cayce readings, give or take actually taking up residence under the sea), and the, to use Arthur's phraseology, awesome decision to visit the centre of the Earth, where Arthur's mum Atlanna (Nicole Kidman) has not so much been hiding out as trapped for three decades. After all this, I'll readily admit that the idea of a CGI-bonanza ultra-battle climax didn’t exactly fill me with enthusiasm, but while it's easily the least engaging part of the movie, it does at least avoid going on ad nauseam. It's almost made worthwhile too by the somewhat hilarious choice to have Orm's plotline resolved by mum's return; it’s simultaneously the corniest thing ever and completely "Yeah, what else is he going to do, short of bawling his eyes out?" 


The bigger problem than the bloat, though, the issue preventing the movie from hitting a homerun, is that most of the cast just don’t pop. Dolph Lundgren (King Nereus) and Willem Dafoe (Vulko) are great in smaller roles – seriously, Dolph is dynamite – but they don’t get much that's really interesting to do. And why the effects guy saw fit to smooth out young Vulko's wrinkles when Dafoe is the very exemplar of the guy who looked about 50 when he was 25 is beyond me. Kidman is okay – it's not exactly a taxing part – while Temeura Morrison provides a nice line in parental acceptance as Thomas Curry (that said, while the movie doesn't depend on it, it's nice all the same to see Atlanna and Thomas reunited at the end, even if the scenario is very reminiscent of Ant-Man and Wasp earlier this year).


As for the leads, I really needed convincing Momoa was a good fit for Aquaman, as I didn't warm at all to his Aquabrah persona in Justice League; Zach Snyder's choices seemed like a desperate attempt to over-compensate for a character generally seen as a bit laughable. So the good news is that he’s fine and likeable – and a brah – and that he can wield a sense of humour as well as a trident. There's a water-off-a-duck's-back flippancy to even his sincerer moments (noting that he made an enemy of Manta by opting not to save his dad, Momoa plays it straight, but you could quite believe, given another beat, he'd just shrug and move on, and I love his "We’ll talk" to Orm as the latter's taken off in cuffs, as if he'll visit him in solitary with a couple of lattes). But for all that, he can't go that extra yard to make Arthur someone to see the movie for, to root for. Amber Heard is… well, she's fine too, but you'll be hard-pressed to remember anything about Mera aside from her costume come the end credits. 


Wan brings a good deal of humour to the table (a squid playing drums, Mera eating roses, the classic barfight scenario turning out to be a request for an autograph), has come up aces in the production and costume design departments (the "stormtrooper" outfits are some of the best we've seen this side of the era Wan's hearkening back to; I think I detected a hint of Krull there) and has overseen CG world-building that for the most part looks the business; it was an ongoing gag in Entourage that James Cameron was going to make an Aquaman, but on this basis the watery Avatar sequels have a genuinely high bar to surpass. Rupert Gregson-Williams also provides a surprisingly great synth-heavy soundtrack, suggestive at times of Jean-Michel Jarre and Daft Punk’s elegant work on TRON Legacy (although, ultimately, Aquaman’s a little too busy for that kind of accolade).


Admittedly, I'm not overly enthused by the prospect of a rematch with Black Manta, unless they seriously up the guy's wit and charisma, although I suspect he'll be a supporting baddie again, since he's utterly outmatched by Arthur, even with Atlantean tech on his side. Of which, the DCU has now established a similar dilemma to the MCU, with an isolationist pocket of the Earth. You can understand the Atlanteans shunning their surface cousins, but it does rather beggar belief that they'll willingly swim about in muck when they can simply deposit the entirety of the oceans' plastic on dry land at a whim. Takes all sorts, I guess. Hopefully, they'll explore this element further in sequels. 


So colour me impressed. James Wan has more than broken the at-best-mixed streak of WB/DC properties post-Nolan's Batverse. Sure, this is still mixed – it really needed protagonists you were fully behind to break out into the Raiders-affair it has its sights on – but its director has done everything right. He's also made the best-looking superhero flick of the year in Aquaman, which gets him even more kudos. In the end, though, even he couldn't work miracles with his raw materials. 


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

Schnell, you stinkers! Come on, raus!

Private’s Progress (1956) (SPOILERS) Truth be told, there’s good reason sequel I’m Alright Jack reaps the raves – it is, after all, razor sharp and entirely focussed in its satire – but Private’s Progress is no slouch either. In some respects, it makes for an easy bedfellow with such wartime larks as Norman Wisdom’s The Square Peg (one of the slapstick funny man’s better vehicles). But it’s also, typically of the Boulting Brothers’ unsentimental disposition, utterly remorseless in rebuffing any notions of romantic wartime heroism, nobility and fighting the good fight. Everyone in the British Army is entirely cynical, or terrified, or an idiot.

Isn’t it true, it’s easier to be a holy man on the top of a mountain?

The Razor’s Edge (1984) (SPOILERS) I’d hadn’t so much a hankering as an idle interest in finally getting round to seeing Bill Murray’s passion project. Partly because it seemed like such an odd fit. And partly because passion isn’t something you tend to associate with any Murray movie project, involving as it usually does laidback deadpan. Murray, at nigh-on peak fame – only cemented by the movie he agreed to make to make this movie – embarks on a serious-acting-chops dramatic project, an adaptation of W Somerset Maugham’s story of one man’s journey of spiritual self-discovery. It should at least be interesting, shouldn’t it? A real curio? Alas, not. The Razor’s Edge is desperately turgid.

It’s not as if she were a… maniac, a raving thing.

Psycho (1960) (SPOILERS) One of cinema’s most feted and most studied texts, and for good reason. Even if the worthier and more literate psycho movie of that year is Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom . One effectively ended a prolific director’s career and the other made its maker more in demand than ever, even if he too would discover he had peaked with his populist fear flick. Pretty much all the criticism and praise of Psycho is entirely valid. It remains a marvellously effective low-budget shocker, one peppered with superb performances and masterful staging. It’s also fairly rudimentary in tone, character and psychology. But those negative elements remain irrelevant to its overall power.

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

I tell you, it saw me! The hanged man’s asphyx saw me!

The Asphyx (1972) (SPOILERS) There was such a welter of British horror from the mid 60s to mid 70s, even leaving aside the Hammers and Amicuses, that it’s easy to lose track of them in the shuffle. This one, the sole directorial effort of Peter Newbrook (a cameraman for David Lean, then a cinematographer), has a strong premise and a decent cast, but it stumbles somewhat when it comes to taking that premise any place interesting. On the plus side, it largely eschews the grue. On the minus, directing clearly wasn’t Newbrook’s forte, and even aided by industry stalwart cinematographer Freddie Young (also a go-to for Lean), The Aspyhx is stylistically rather flat.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.