I was looking forward to a DCEU movie that was at least as good as “Wonder Woman.” I wanted to be surprised so I resisted spoilers and attempted to psychologically remove my personal biases about Jason Momoa’s acting skills and attractiveness prior to viewing. And I did with some success!

“Aquaman” was fun. “Aquaman” was really nice to look at. But, that’s about it. There were way too many plots and too many poorly-edited shifts in direction. They ‘superhero-troped’ the hell out of this film as if they knew they’d never get a sequel. 

For example, there was a “‘LOOK!’ the hero is about to do something heroic, so let’s have the hero hit the ‘look-back’ stare to signal to the audience that his next move may be perilous, and he may not come back (he does), but we need to build up some faux suspense.” CRINGE! 

The underwater sets were gorgeous! However, I wish more attention was given to the on-land scenes.  It’s really odd and kinda hilarious that the land scenes looked more CGI than the ones set in the ocean.

Aight, so…look, I understand, it’s just a movie. But, I challenge you to consider this: a “decent” film has many of its elements aligned; a “critically-acclaimed” film usually satisfies because it has innovated some aspect of filmmaking–the product is singular, it has a voice as a piece of art. Pretentious, I know, I’m sorry.  But, the screenplay, the actors, the costuming and set design, directing, etc. are all (or mostly) in-sync.  The distinction between a “good” and “bad” film could be the lapse of one of those elements.

Recall a movie where every element was “on-point” but one. Got it, okay…check this, for me… “Aquaman” made me break all of my cardinal cinema rules–I checked my watch twice, my phone once, and actually got up from my comfortable seat to see if the theater bar was still open (it wasn’t).  I did all of this without missing a single plot point. 😑

To conclude, issa “no” from me, dawg.