|
Post by Gris on Dec 24, 2018 6:01:41 GMT -5
You preferred it to Wonder Woman? By a very minimal margin right now I think I do. Of course, Aquaman has terrible acting without much chemistry on its mains and has thrown in like the plot of 2 to 3 different movies by thinning the ideas. But despite being a bit on the longer side than it should, it still has a good visual design and decent rhythm that makes it feel whole. It may be just a basic, silly superhero movie that feels like it arrives almost a decade late, but it's a solid one that doesn't feel... failed. Wonder Woman aspires to be more, and for a good part it manages to be. The start is a bit clumsy, specially the bedtime/origin story with the Amazon's objectified to be a weapon (curiously one that struggles to stop human soldiers) but it's just a small bit during a decent start. The (supposed) main villains are forgettable (and disfigured or weak in contrast with our beautiful and strong heroes), the ballroom/party scene it's quite awful and feels out of place and I don't want to even get into Steve Trevor's merry band of racist stereotypes. The absolute terrible climax doesn't help either. So I'm not sure, really. I tend to praise the one that tries and fails over the one that doesn't even try, but as the time passes I'm more and more unsure about how much does Wonder Woman really try.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Dec 24, 2018 10:19:28 GMT -5
Yeah, Wonder Woman had a lot of problems that the bulk of fans (especially the more casual movie-goers) seem happy to sweep under the rug. I think what happens is people compare it only/mostly to the other DCEU movies, and so in that case it looks so bright and optimistic and fun, while the awkwardness, questionable CGI, weak villain, etc, are all par for the course.
I'm not that high on it either. Mostly I really enjoyed the trench scene, but otherwise when I think of the movie, I tend to think about what I would have done differently as a writer. I consider it to be on the level of the first Thor movie, which is to say flawed and clunky, but endearing.
I know what you mean about favouring the movies that try. I think that's why I'm optimistic about Shazam, for example; looks like they're taking some risks to do something a little different. Maybe it'll just be annoying, but at least it isn't the same writes-itself origin story we've seen a dozen times, and ten years ago.
Now stop making me want to see Aquaman.
|
|
|
Post by mcr on Dec 30, 2018 18:07:26 GMT -5
It was good. Better than I thought it would be, not as good as I would've hoped, but a solid 8/10. Like many reviewers, thought it could've pared down a touch, but hard to say what exactly should've been cut. Story flowed well, didn't think they snipped parts of 3 different stories into one. A little jarring to the casual fan that we're supposed to know who all these characters are (Vulko is the prime suspect, but Mera had touches of this in the beginning).
Can't help but feel like DC/WB should've tried much much harder to get this film out before JL. Referencing that film left a sour taste in my mouth. Also, what's up with these super famous actresses getting bit parts in superhero movies (looking at you Keaton, Pfeiffer, Kidman, Amy Adams, Julie Andrews?!?!).
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Jan 6, 2019 13:17:33 GMT -5
Also, what's up with these super famous actresses getting bit parts in superhero movies (looking at you Keaton, Pfeiffer, Kidman, Amy Adams, Julie Andrews?!?!). There aren't a lot of roles for women over 40 that aren't "witch" or "grandmother". At least these roles are easy and pay relatively well, but aren't so big that you have to go along on the exhausting promo circuit.
Worth noting that Aquaman is now the most financially successful DCEU movie, and has passed several Marvel films, including recent hits like Guardians vol 2, and Thor Ragnarok. It's still chugging along domestically (looks like it will finish close to 300M, which is decent) but its domination in the foreign market is still what's fascinating to me. You can bet that studio execs are going to dissect the hell out of this success - and try to copy it.
|
|
|
Post by mcr on Jan 6, 2019 17:31:58 GMT -5
Yes, it’s not the small parts that interests me but the fact they got such big names. Like they could basically have cast anyone and presumably saved some cash without hurting the film quality.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Jan 6, 2019 22:38:25 GMT -5
Well, I figure big names give a movie some credibility, which is very important for a still-emerging genre like super hero or comic book movies. Part of Marvel's success isn't just making quality comic book movies, it's convincing general audiences to give them a try. I'm sure there are a lot of potential movie-goers out there who might instinctively scoff at a Captain America movie, but then rethink when they realize "Hey wow, Robert Redford is in this?" And getting famous actresses in particular might have an added effect of shoring up the source material's general lack of lead female characters, which I find tends to be especially problematic in the really old comics that are often the main foundation for screenplays. Like, no, there's never going to be a movie about Ma Kent, but hey look: Diane Keaton! If we weren't taking our female characters seriously, do you think we could land Diane Keaton? *subtly hands Diane Keaton a huge sack with "$$" written on the side* As with almost everything in the MCU, I think Iron Man really got the ball rolling with its cast. Gwyneth Paltrow was a pretty big get at the time; Jeff Bridges even more so, and he landed perhaps my favourite line delivery in all the MCU. ( Okay, maybe second.) It was a big leap from the days of the Blade trilogy, say. It's a real shame they lost Patty Jenkins as director for Thor 2, because I would love to see what she could have done for Natalie Portman, who was otherwise wasted on Jane Foster.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on May 28, 2019 22:35:26 GMT -5
Hoooooly crap this movie is so bad. What the actual crap were you guys smoking when you watched and enjoyed this? XD
I'm 3/4 the way through it and I've been cringe-laughing the whole time. It is vastly inferior to Suicide Squad in almost every way. The acting frels like it was all done in one take. There's is zero chemistry. The plot is so cheesy and nonsensical. The editing is choppy. Your average TV commercial has better special effects.
lol What the actual fuck.
|
|
|
Post by Ushima911 on May 28, 2019 22:40:43 GMT -5
Woof. TWF is NOT pleased. I do not blame him, though.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on May 28, 2019 23:04:39 GMT -5
Oh I'm not angry or anything. I enjoyed it the same way I enjoyed Suicide Squad and Justice League: I like a train wreck every now and then. But yikes.
And no judgment on anyone who sincerely liked it. Tastes are like that.
But yiiikes.
|
|
|
Post by Gris on May 29, 2019 4:00:02 GMT -5
Yeah, I kind of warned about it. Aquaman has terrible acting without much chemistry on its mains and has thrown in like the plot of 2 to 3 different movies by thinning the ideas
But I did also enjoy the movie despite that, it's a bummer you didn't. The acting on both main characters is really, really terrible and a good part of how the movie lands is how much that affects the overall experience. Watching it as a silly 80s' adventure flick crossbred with the most generic 2000s' superhero movie possible and some modern CGI bling to sell it and it worked for me, specially the second time (not that I'm recommending you to subject to a cringeworthy experience twice, just saying how it worked for me).
I disagree on it being worse than Suicide Squad though. Both plot and acting-wise both are awful, sure, but visually Aquaman works way better and it isn't the macro and micro editing nightmare Suicide Squad is. It's precisely that point where I'm most curious about your experience. I mean, Aquaman has some issues jumping from one scene to the other (we're on a plane! we're on a boat!) that are kinda forgivable for the sake of pacing, and it overabuses the "lets interrupt the exposition with an explosion to make sure the audience isn't asleep" trick several times to the point of being almost a running gag. But there are few movies so horribly edited than Suicide Squad, that's why I'm curious.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on May 29, 2019 6:49:18 GMT -5
So uh... I liked Aquaman. And Suicide Squad for that matter LOL
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on May 29, 2019 7:12:05 GMT -5
The difference might be that I watched Aquaman at home, on Blu-ray but not 4k. The special effects were atrocious: horrible green-screening, inconsistent lighting and very inconsistent weight effects underwater, lazy motion-blur, etc. Perhaps it looked more passable on the big screen or on a 4k TV? Suicide Squad definitely looked better to me, if only because it used special effects more sparingly and made more use of practical effects. Even Justice League (uncanny valley lip notwithstanding) looked better overall.
I technically enjoyed the act of watching the movie; I went out of my way to rent it (we still have a video store here!) and watched it by myself because none of my friends wanted to see it. I do this with a lot of bad movies sometimes, but Aquaman was a disappointment. Maybe it just wasn't bad enough to wrap back around to terribad, but it's a clusterfuck through and through and it felt 5 hours long.
I liked Suicide Squad more for the movie it clearly could have been. It was more obvious that it was beaten to death in pre- and post-production, whereas Aquaman is just a hot mess in every regard. I think if Aquaman took itself less seriously (a lot less seriously) then it would have been a little easier to enjoy on that level. Doing a bad job of acting, editing, writing, pacing, and in special effects is not the same as the film not taking itself seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Gris on May 29, 2019 8:02:14 GMT -5
In the movie theater (and it's a decent one) looked nice, the production design is solid and the director is a good one, even if that doesn't always translate well. Visually Suicide Squad was less risky most of the time but that paid off (except the end, when the CGI craps its pants) against Aquaman's underwater scenes. I did like them even if they looked kinda messy, the look of the movie in general makes it feel somewhat Power Rangers-y, even if the protagonists don't visually mesh well with it most of the time (beyond Mera's jellyfish costume and Arthur's final form).
I guess that in the end I loved the overcomplicated goofy romp of Aquaman (even if I agree that the acting is terrible and it could have used more silliness) than Suicide Squad's intense urban adventure. With both movies where "as they should have been" maybe it would be different, but with the end result I largely prefer The Baywatch Mummy 4: National Atlantean Treasure than Birds of Jail (And The Fantabulous Emancipation of the edgiest Jared Leto).
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on May 29, 2019 8:03:55 GMT -5
They each would have made like 10% more at the boxoffice if those were the real names.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on May 29, 2019 9:05:55 GMT -5
I liked Suicide Squad more for the movie it clearly could have been. It was more obvious that it was beaten to death in pre- and post-production, whereas Aquaman is just a hot mess in every regard. I think if Aquaman took itself less seriously (a lot less seriously) then it would have been a little easier to enjoy on that level. Doing a bad job of acting, editing, writing, pacing, and in special effects is not the same as the film not taking itself seriously. You're not wrong. ... but I still enjoyed both movies. I know its been said but I want to say this again anyway; the CGI in DC's movies (including Wonder Woman) is terrible. Unforgivably bad. I have no idea how they let that stuff out the door as a finished product. (To a lesser extent, I feel the same about their costuming)
|
|