Waterlogged

I endured Batman v Superman and Justice League under the notion that they were valuable backstory to watching Aquaman. And I'd heard that while Aquaman wasn't as good as Wonder Woman, it was surprisingly worthwhile. I wish now that I could remember where I'd heard that so I could smack those people. (Using a six-foot pole, of course.) I wish I could go back in time and give myself a dire warning. (Though perhaps that wouldn't be the top priority if I could actually go back in time.)

Point being: Aquaman is beyond terrible. The modern DC film franchise has served up quite a few bad films, but in my mind it's not even really a competition: Aquaman is far and away the worst. It resides comfortably in the valley of badness, not even able to muster the courtesy of being "so bad, it's good." Or maybe I'm just cranky over any time I wasted watching subpar movies at home, back in the days when we could all safely go out in public.

The DC superhero films have spent a lot of time, money, and effort trying to replicate the Marvel Cinematic Universe -- all the while showing a clear lack of understanding of why the MCU has been successful. Aquaman is the pinnacle of this; of all the MCU films you could choose to copy, why would you ever choose the first Thor?

Just like Thor, Aquaman is a very bright, colorful and epic feast for the eyes -- though with CG that almost always looks fake. It stars an extremely charismatic actor working with a character written in his first film to be brooding and anti-charismatic. The plot revolves around one brother on a reluctant quest to claim his royal birthright, coming into conflict with another brother with great skill in politics and deception.

What Aquaman isn't stealing outright from Thor, it's stealing from 300. It feels like every other shot is a needlessly spinning camera circling through an unconvincingly green-screened environment. Copious speed ramping is used in an attempt to inject energy into unexciting action sequences. And everyone screams straight into the camera before charging into battle. There is so. Much. Screaming.

There's no sense of stakes or danger at any point in the story, as Arthur/Aquaman is battered so thoroughly and takes so much physical abuse that the fact he gets up and walks away renders it all meaningless. (And it's DC, of course, so there's tons of incidental property damage too. Lots of pixels are damaged in the making of this movie.)

There is perhaps the potential for one genuine surprise in the story, but the movie bungles that too, thanks to casting. You don't get Nicole Kidman to be in your movie for a single four-minute sequence (in which she's noticeably "de-aged"); two hours turns out to be an interminable wait for her inevitable return. But then, Kidman's appearance in this movie is arguably less confounding than that of Willem Dafoe and Patrick Wilson, both of whom have done the superhero thing before and thus don't need to cross that off the list by appearing here.

I have seen worse movies in my time. And I did actually finish this one, amazingly enough. So I guess I'd say Aquaman is a D-? Maybe? There's probably no point in quibbling over degrees of "wow, was that bad." Poor Jason Momoa deserved better. As did we all.