Connect with us

featured

Aquaman Review : The Trident is a little blunt

Is “Aquaman” better than “Justice League”? Yes!

Caffeinated Clint

Published

on

Director:

James Wan

Cast:

Jason Momoa, Amber Heard, Willem Dafoe, Patrick Wilson, Nicole Kidman, Temuera Morrison, Dolph Lundgren, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II

Run time:

143 mins

Rating:

Those milkshakes might bring all the boys to the yard – but what if, once they take a sip, they’re suddenly hit by the realization that the syrup that gives it its flavor has been used way too scarcely?

That’s how many will feel about Warner’s “Aquaman” – pretty on the outside and full to the brim but somewhat ordinary, lacking the bubble and taste of the better superhero films in recent years.

Sure, the trident works… it’s just a little blunt.

The story kicks off on the coastline of Maine, where a kindly local (Temuera Morrison) rescues a wounded woman (Nicole Kidman) from the shallow waters below the lighthouse. As she reveals, she’s from the sea – a citizen of the underwater city of Atlantis. Time passes, they fall in love, and ultimately, baby Arthur enters the picture.

After a soldier of weapon-blazing Atlantians come looking for her, Atlanna comes to the conclusion that her husband and child will be safer if she returns to her home.  So that’s what she does. And as far as legend has it, she was sentenced to death upon arriving back. Fade to Black.

Years later, ‘half-breed’ Arthur Curry (Jason Momoa), still loving with his pop, is approached by a woman from the water, Mera (Amber Heard) who requests his presence in Atlantis. It’s there that he – the rightful King – will aid in the fight against the malevolent Orm (Patrick Wilson), also Arthur’s half-brother, who is determined to bring destruction to the people above.

Aquaman – a character that increased in popularity in the ‘50s and ‘60s, as a founding member of the Justice League – will one day be the King of Atlantis, that we know, but not before he accepts his heritage, hones his powers, and finds the spiky thing that allows him to rule.

Within the next couple of hours, Curry – with underwater-pal Mera, the King’s daughter, assisting – will evade all sorts of human and non-human threats, and likely, take on his turncoat sibling.

So, just quickly, is “Aquaman” better than “Justice League”? Yes – but that didn’t sit a very high benchmark, did it?  (Even the last “Ghoulies” flick looks like Bertolucci next to it). Still, it is – this resembles an actual film, with an actual start, middle and end, as opposed to a random cushion of loose film negatives from weak comic-book fan-films enveloped together.

Is Jason Momoa good as the future King of the Sea ? Yes, he sure is – though he could’ve used some smarter, witter dialogue to dish out as he chased his throne. Still, he does get to do more than shout ‘My Man!’ twenty times, so that’s a win for his agent.

Does the ‘senator of scares’ James Wan (“Saw”, “Insidious”, “The Conjuring”) deliver as good as superhero film as he does horror films? The toilet-break I didn’t mind taking somewhere in the middle of the 2-hour 23-minute film might answer that.

Thing is, this isn’t a ‘James Wan Film’ and was never going to be.

After the commercial and critical failures of most (“Wonder Woman” an exception) of DC’s previous superhero films (particularly last year’s “Justice League”, which Momoa’s Aquaman featured in), anyone tackling “Aquaman” was going to have their work cut out for them – especially if they’re coming in hoping to put their own stamp or trademark-style on the picture. By-and-large, the filmmaker is to stick to a tried-and-true formula that was pre-prepared before they even took their seat at the table.

Based on comments made by most filmmakers who’ve directed a superhero movie over the past twenty years, the filmmaker isn’t necessarily being hired for their imaginative ideas, trademark directing style or refreshing vision – you’re a hired gun answering to a committee, a committee that’s already decided on the look and tone of a movie before a director is even hired. And as we saw with the “Justice League” debacle, too many cooks usually result in a kitchen that goes down in flames. That’s not exactly the case here, there’s only a few small spot fires on show, but hardly any of Wan’s strengths on screen.

Admittedly, anyone bringing this comic to the silver screen was always going to have to jump through some hard waves. The character of Aquaman, or Arthur Curry as he’s known on dry land, has long been designated the more ridiculous of the justice league bunch – what with his main super power being that he can talk to fish. But with the film, co-writer and director Wan takes the only workable approach – by playing up the ridiculous element of the character, and his world, and having his film mimic a fast-packed Japanese anime than serious superhero fare.

And while the approach works for the most part, it’s also that impetus to play up the silly, and trumpet the film’s visual oddities, that ultimately hurts the film. By focusing largely on the film’s outrageous special effects sequences, visual-stirring but lengthy underwater battle sequences and an assortment of CGI creatures (an octopus playing the drums, anyone?), Wan has lost what made his horror entries so great – a unique plot, interesting characters one could invest in, and enough compel to drive the story forward. Plus, there’s just so, so, so much of ‘it’  – after a while, all you see is  a computer-generated orgy of tentacles flipping, flopping and smacking the sides of submarines and dancing around lasers. Scissors, editors, scissors!

The script, penned by David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick (“Orphan”) and Will Beall (“Gangster Squad”), plays more like blockbusters of a similar ilk – largely “Avatar”, “Thor” and “Tron Legacy” (of which this film’s plot, hidden fantastical world and even score closely resemble) than the fresher, more captivating comic book fare of late like “Spider-Man : Into the Spider-Verse” , “Logan”, even DC’s “Wonder Woman”.

If the “Fast & Furious” film he did, and now “Aquaman”, prove anything it’s that Wan is best suited to smaller, more original genre films – not super-sized studio blockbusters, especially not the ones where he’s essentially only being hired to point and shoot. At least then, he’ll likely get to do his thing.

Better than the uneven style-to-substance ratio is the cast – with Jason Momoa’s Aquaman a fun, bicep-tually charming and likeable hero. He doesn’t have a lot to work with, and we never quite get to know the guy as anything other than a cocky meathead, but he’s engaging to watch.

Amber Heard’s bust doesn’t fare as well, with her lack of acting chops so cumbersomely evident in several big moments, but she does, like her onscreen love interest, at least look the part.

Also fun to see Patrick Wilson, Willem Dafoe, Dolph Lundgren and Julie Andrews (who we don’t so much see, as we do hear) in very different roles than we’re used to seeing them – near all of them cast in the part you least expect to see them in.

Momoa may be the star but it’s Nicole Kidman and Temuera Morrison, playing Curry’s parents, in their own sweet bookend story, that stand out. Kidman, kicking all sorts of arse in a role that’s a radical departure for the thesp, and Morrison, playing the sort of protective and somber role he barely gets to play, are incredible together as the tragic lovers who’s coming together sets the events of the film in motion. Their performances, and their little story, is one of the film’s highlights.

“Aquaman” isn’t a bad movie, in fact it has a lot going on for it on a technical and creative level, and it’s not the mess “Justice League” was, but it sure would’ve been nice if they’d pulled back on all the battered fish and not let the writers flake off. Maybe the sequel – of which the customary end credits sequence sets up – won’t be so waterlogged.

featured

Reboot-Palooza : Willow, Dawson’s Creek, Warm Bodies next?

Ron Howard says “serious discussions” are underway to bring the ’80s fantasy to TV

Caffeinated Clint

Published

on

Remakes, reboots, revivals and returns are the new school socks – the turn-over rate is high.

Today, news on a “Willow” reboot series (this is the thing Ron Howard’s been hinting at for a while now) for Disney Plus, a possible revival of “Dawson’s Creek” (I’ll believe it when I see it) and a television adaptation of a saccharine spooker from a couple of years ago.

 

George Lucas had long wanted to turn ’80s fantasy film “Willow”, which Howard directed and the former Lucasfilm CEO produced, into a series. He won’t have anything to do with it, but his initial proposition looks to have come off.

According to the former Ritchie Cunningham, Disney’s streaming division is looking at bringing Warwick Davis’s pint-sized adventurer to TV.

Howard tells MTV’s Happy Sad Confused podcast that they’re in “serious discussions” to make it happen.

“Warwick is so cool and so good and he’s such a good actor that I really hope we get the chance to see the mature Willow in action,” the “Solo” director said.

The 1988 film, which also starred Val Kilmer, Jean Marsh, Billy Barty, Joanne Whalley and Kevin Pollak, starred “Return of the Jedi” actor Davis as a dwarf who reluctantly agrees to protect a special infant named Elora Danan from an evil queen. Kilmer played the mercenary swordsman that assists in the mission.

 

Warwick Davis in “Willow”

 

Most folks involved in the original take have never expressed too much enthusiasm for a “Dawson’s Creek” reboot, but according to the couple who played the title character’s parents on the hit show – the original cast, and creator Kevin Williamson, might have had a change of mind.

The revelation comes via John Wesley Shipp and Mary-Margaret Humes who recently went off about not being invited to feature in Entertainment Weekly’s March 2018 reunion cover.

“I did take it a little more personally [than John] because there was all this talk about a possible reunion,” Humes told Us Weekly. “Because I’d been doing all of this on Instagram, which I — just a couple months before, I felt like I was helping to make a reunion happen. Not a photo shoot, but actually bring the show back by revisiting what it was like.”

“She’s the one that keeps in touch with the kids, I keep in touch with the kids through her. It’s kind of like a stereotypical marriage,” Shipp added. “You have to realize that that was the role that [she] fulfilled in the company and on the set. She was the glue that kept everybody going out together. She had the boat, making sure that everyone was taken care of, doing the footage. Giving the parties when people had birthdays.”

The actress now believes her efforts have led to something positive though – ‘reboot’ talk.

“I’m glad I spoke out, because Katie [Holmes] called me, James [Van Der Beek] called me, Kerr [Smith] called me, Kevin [Williamson] texted me, Julie Plec texted me,” she told the publication. “It reunited us, and now there is actual talk about, secret talk, like, ‘Maybe we should do this.’ So, fingers crossed. I don’t know anything more than anybody else, but there has been a group text going around saying, ‘Maybe it’s time.’”

James Van Der Beek in “Dawson’s Creek”

 

Out plugging his wonderful frickin’ rom-com “Long Shot”, director Jonathan Levine has confirmed plans for a small-screen take on his sweet zombie comedy from a couple of years ago, “Warm Bodies”.

Per The Hollywood Reporter, Levine has signed a first-look deal with Lionsgate that encompasses film and TV. As part of the dead, he’ll be producing “Warm Bodies: The TV show”.

Former Lionsgate exec Gillian Bohrer is launching Levin’s new prod co Megamix with the filmmaker, and said in statement that, “Jonathan and I have a shared passion for movies that defy conventional wisdom about what defines a ‘commercial movie.’ I loved the diverse slate of projects I was able to shepherd at Lionsgate, and we’re delighted to bring Megamix to a company that believes in taking risks.”

Nicholas Hoult and Teresa Palmer starred in the 2013 movie.

Nicholas Hoult and Teresa Palmer in “Warm Bodies”

 

 

Continue Reading

featured

Caffeinated Clint’s Ten Favourite Films of 2018

And also his least favourite films of the year!

Caffeinated Clint

Published

on

I don’t know that it was a great year for movies – in fact, most of the films I’d been anticipating bit me like a leech on the testicle – but that doesn’t mean there still wasn’t some tasty meat in between the pellets. For every “Jurassic World : Fallen Kingdom” there was a “Blackkklansman”, and for every [Insert Amy Schumer Movie Title] Here there was “Boy Erased”. Studios stuck to the recent norm of putting style over substance when it came to their tentpoles, leaving so many of the hotly anticipated and unyieldingly-promoted fare from the likes of chafing disappointments, but those major independent labels and artistic auteurs more than made up for any bugs in the system, smearing MacAfee virus removal all over the marquee with their distinct, diverse and surprisingly unique offerings.

The year’s biggest surprise  – if only because it was a project that had been simmering away for the better part of fifteen years, losing director after director, leads after leads – was undoubtedly “A Star is Born”, which not only introduced audiences to ‘up and coming’ actress Lady Gaga, whose name will now be firmly cemented in cinema as much as it’s been in music, but also tyro director Bradley Cooper, who took on a discarded Eastwood project and put his own unique and powerful spin on it. Sure, it’s a story we’d seen time and time again (in fact, this is the fourth version of “A Star is Born”), but it was the chemistry of the leads, those dynamite performances, and the emotion carved into the libretto that kept critics and audiences hooked.

Like Cooper, freshman director Joel Edgerton also hit it out of the park this year with his turn behind the camera – “Boy Erased”. What a film that was. Just sublime. Powerful stuff.

On the no-surprise front, the always-dependable “Mission : Impossible” franchise continued to impress – is it the only series that actually improves as it goes on!? – just as much as its headline act, Tom Cruise, does with the most entertaining, most skilled blockbuster of the year “Fallout”. Featuring a killer turn from Henry Cavill as its hulking villain, eye-popping stunts and action sequences, and endless reminders why Tom Cruise is still the most bankable box-office star of our times, sixth time was the charm for the now 22-year-old movie franchise.

If one genre had the monopoly on the ‘best of’ list this year it was the family category, with everything from Paramount’s “Bumblebee”, Pixar’s “The Incredibles 2” and “Ralph Breaks the Internet”, and Sony Animation’s “Spider-Man : Into the Spider-Verse” all topping most live-action fare when it comes to sheer storytelling, allure and uniqueness. Seems the computer maketh some awesome filmeth!

Also very solid, the superhero movie fare of 2018 – sure, there were the fun, enjoyable time-passers like “Deadpool 2” and “Aquaman” but at the top end of the scale were some truly magnificent pieces, like the ground-breaking and exceedingly breathtaking “Black Panther” from Marvel.

Bearing in mind I’m still to catch up with quite a few movies that have made most Top Ten lists (including “If Beale Street Could Talk”, “Green Book”, “Suspiria” and “First Reformed”) here are my top ten favourite movies of 2018 :

 

A Star is Born

Mission : Impossible  – Fallout

Boy Erased

Blackkklansman

A Quiet Place

Black Panther

Ralph Breaks the Internet

Avengers : Infinity War

Game Night

The Incredibles 2

 

Runners-Up : Annihilation, Bumblebee, Spider-Man : Into the Spider-Verse, Ant-Man & The Wasp

 

And, for me, these were the least enjoyable films of the year…

 

Tag

Super Troopers 2

Holmes & Watson

I Feel Pretty

Truth or Dare

Oceans 8

Skyscraper

Gotti

The Predator

Jurassic World : Fallen Kingdom

Continue Reading

featured

Apparently Sinbad stars in the new Aladdin?

Don’t worry, he’ll be a Man in Blue come summer 2019

Caffeinated Clint

Published

on

The Fresh Prince of Blue Heir.

Disney have unveiled a first look at Will Smith’s Genie from the upcoming live-action (in case you haven’t heard, that’s the latest thing Disney have dampened their undies for lately) ‘Aladdin’, and I gotta tell you, it is absolutely beautiful to see such full those hearts at Christmastime… as evident in social media responses.

For the record, and if it helps with the eye chafing, the character will be ‘blue’ in the finished film. Mike Lowery said it himself. In other words, the movie is going to be the shizzle. All it needs is a blue genie, after all. Right!?

Some other pics from the upcoming flick are below, but first, a new photo from Disney’s upcoming “Lion King” adaptation – here’s Mufasa.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Like us?

The Latest

Get Moviehole News Updates!

Enter your email address to subscribe to Moviehole and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Exclusives!

At the Movies

Watch

Hot