Aquaman

IncognitoMan

Gbear wrote: »

The script and acting are far worse than any Marvel film I can think of though.

Ah it took Marvel a while to get their formula right to be fair, the older films had a few growing pains which are more noticeable looking back.

Aquaman is slightly better I'd say than Iron Man 2, Thor 1 and 2 and Hulk.

By the sounds of what's coming out of Shazam it sounds like DC is going very close to that Marvel formula going forward. (Not good for the genre overall I feel).

Marvel does at least tend to nail the team up films. Avengers 2 being the only kinda boring one.

I don't think we'll get anywhere close to that now with the DC films. I think we could have been onto something fairly different but when Justice League was reworked we lost wherever it was we were going with that universe. To be fair when the mainstream audience isn't responding well you can't do much.

Gbear wrote: »

Is it fair to say at this point that Jason Momoa can't really act?

Can't say he's bothered me to be honest. I thought he was fine here.

Avatar MIA

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Aquaman is slightly better I'd say than Iron Man 2, Thor 1 and 2 and Hulk.

Not in this or most other universes I imagine.

IncognitoMan

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Not in this or most other universes I imagine.

Nah, really the MCU has spoiled us but going back to those films in the build up to Endgame has been rough, in particular Thor 2 and Hulk. I think they get more of a pass because of the excellent films they lead to in the end.

Iron Man, Captain America and Avengers all hold up but the rest struggle, mostly because they are boring which is the worst trait for a film to have.

Not that Aquaman is brilliant or anything but I'd much rather re-watch that right now over Thor 1 or 2 (thank god for Taika Waititi because Thor needed Thor 3), Hulk or Iron Man 2.

Although I'd be in no hurry to re-watch any of them anytime soon in reality :pac:

mikhail

Poor Thor 1 deserves more love. I thought Branagh brought a wonderful Shakespearean seasoning to the hero formula, a bit of heart to Thor's character arc, and Hopkins brought a bit of gravitas to keep the whole thing from feeling silly. And it gave us Loki, the only villain worth a damn in the glut of comic book movies since The Dark Knight.

TerrorFirmer

IncognitoMan wrote: »

Aquaman is slightly better I'd say than Iron Man 2, Thor 1 and 2 and Hulk.

Honestly I would say that's an extreme minority opinion.

Iron Man 2 is Citizen Kane compared to Aqua-man, which I honestly thought despite having some charm, was an utterly dreadful film.

I don't even like Thor or Hulk either, but I still consider them better rounded, better acted, and more cohesive films than Aqua-man.

Gbear

mikhail wrote: »

Poor Thor 1 deserves more love. I thought Branagh brought a wonderful Shakespearean seasoning to the hero formula, a bit of heart to Thor's character arc, and Hopkins brought a bit of gravitas to keep the whole thing from feeling silly. And it gave us Loki, the only villain worth a damn in the glut of comic book movies since The Dark Knight.

If it wasn't for the Dutch angles it'd be fine, but they really are awful and distracting.

Dunno what was going on there.

pixelburp

I think the Phase 1 Marvel movies shave it for me because they were all quite small-scale, personal stories, before 'shared universes' were even a confirmed thing (though arguably Thor was the first to hint at crossovers). They were solid, enjoyable features made by equally dependable directors.

Aquaman was 2.5 hours of visual, aural noise.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

Aquaman was 2.5 hours of visual, aural noise.

And yet, it's that film that does it for the DCCU. People lost their shit over gloomy Superman and "Martha", but 'Aquaman' gets a pass. Fucking 'Aquaman'!

I don't know people any more.

:pac: