"Aquaman" Movie Review

This is my review of the movie “Aquaman.” I can’t speak for everyone else, but I enjoyed the movie. It allowed me to get away from reality for a while, which is nice, and it entertained me.

That being said, there were things that bothered me throughout the movie and they really stood out to me. If you have not seen the movie because of lack of time or you are waiting to rent it for a cheaper price than a seat in a movie theater, please do not read this. I you don’t want anything to be spoiled for you.

The main problem that I found with this movie is that it is not consistent with “Justice League” in at least two ways. The first one is with Arthur/Aquaman’s mother, Queen Atlanna. I’m not sure what transpired before Tom Curry discovered her injured and unconscious on the rocks outside his lighthouse, but the two met… and eventually along came Arthur. A few years later, she is with Tom and a young Arthur when some Atlantian solders break into their home. There is a fight that she wins (obviously) and then she returns to Atlantis to keep Arthur and Tom out of danger. Later, you learn that she had been sacrificed at some point, but not until after she had given birth to a son, Orm, who became king. Then, near the end of the movie, the mother is found alive and well… and stranded. (I didn’t see this coming but maybe it should have been obvious this would happen since the character is portrayed by Nicole Kidman and big names don’t tend to be in the first ten minutes only to die off and never be seen or heard from again.) She couldn’t come back from where she was because that required the use of the golden trident, but she was unable to retrieve it due to the creature guarding it. Once Arthur took possession of the trident, the mother is able to return with him and Mera. Once all is said and done, she goes back to Tom.

That is all fine and dandy… except that in “Justice League” there was a line from Arthur that Queen Atlanna had left him on his father’s doorstep and never gave him another thought. The character of his mom wasn’t in the movie and had clearly never been a part of his life. This is all wrong. “Aquaman” takes place chronologically before “Justice League.” DC has now set it that there was a loving mother in one movie (who only wasn’t there because she had been sacrificed) and a non-existent mother in the other movie. Who was doing the writing? Was it the same people? Did no one take an effort to try and make sure that what was in “Justice League” was in sync with “Aquaman” or vice versa? They started off with a deadbeat mother, and then when it’s time to go into the character’s backstory, there is now a loving mother. Uh… no. Try again. But anyway, if there is another Justice League movie, no matter what they do with the mother, they are contradicting one movie or the other. If she is absent from the movie because she cares little for Arthur, or is present but not being much of a mother, it goes along with “Justice League” but not “Aquaman.” If she is present and loving/part of his life, it goes along with “Aquaman” but not “Justice League.” Can we say epic fail?

The second inconsistency is with Arthur himself. (“Justice League” came out first but I am going to deal with this chronologically.) In “Aquaman” there is bitterness that Arthur understandably had toward the Atlantians because they had unmercifully sacrificed his mother, mainly because she had Arthur (and maybe partly due to her unwillingness to marry some Atlantian king dude even though she ended up doing it anyway), and he was unwilling to help counteract the problem of King Orm and his war against those on land. But, Arthur decides to help (of course) and by the end of the movie everything is better (to some extent), he is the One True King, he has the trident, he gets the girl (Mera), and he seems happier. All is well, so to speak. Then, we have the events of “Justice League.” Once again, Arthur is sporting his gruff demeanor and unwillingness to help fight to save the day before something happens and he decides to help. I don’t quite remember his unwillingness to help, other than a possible dislike for Batman, but that’s just one guy. The whole world was at stake. Here again I would say that the writers failed. He goes from being gruff and bitter to being relatively happy only to end up moody again. Why? I think that movies tend to end on a high note more often than not, but they should have handled this differently. I don’t know when each script was written or which was finished first, but either “Aquaman” should have ended in such a way that you can understand Arthur’s attitude in the beginning of “Justice League” OR they should have considered Arthur’s mood at the end of “Aquaman” and made him more willing to help in the beginning of “Justice League.” Maybe the writers were too interested in being heavy and dramatic by having Arthur continue to be gruff and moody, but the latter would make more sense anyway since it would be odd for him to switch gears and no longer want to defend and protect those on land, especially since the threat was to everyone, in or out of the water. I mean, the whole big deal about the character was that he is both human and Atlantian. Plus, if life is going well for him, like it was at the end of “Aquaman,” it would make him that much more gung ho to want to help take down the bad guy and preserve what he has going for him. Otherwise, what motivation would he really have to fight the villain?

Some might argue that “Justice League” was introducing the character of Aquaman and those behind the scenes wanted to start him off as being gruff so that he could go through a change in the movie and not be so gruff by the end. That would be understandable… but he has now been that way in the beginning of two movies only to end up not that way by the end. Part of where they messed up was doing “Justice League” before they did the movie for “Aquaman.” They got it right with the Wonder Woman character, but the movie for her came first and then we got “Justice League.” It makes me wonder if they will be consistent if they also do introductory stories for Flash and Cyborg. As for Aquaman, I hope the gruffness isn’t going to be a trend with the character. It can’t possibly be hard for Arthur to be a tough and intimidating character without the negativity.

Other than those inconsistencies, the rest of what bothered me was…

Arthur/Aquaman was half human, half Atlantian. Yet, when introduced to breathing while submerged, his body took it like a champ, as if he’d been taking in oxygen via water since birth. I would think, realistically, his body/lungs would have to learn how to do that since he wasn’t born underwater. For example, when Clark Kent/Kal-El in “Man of Steel” breathed Kryptonian air for the first time as an adult, his body and lungs went into shock. It wasn’t going to kill him because he was genetically predisposed to breathe that air, but his lungs and body were going to have to re-learn how to accept and process this air that he had first, and very temporarily, breathed as an infant. It was even said by the character of his mother, Martha Kent, that he had struggled to breathe as an infant. This, of course, was due to his body’s unfamiliarity with Earth’s oxygen. So, going back to Arthur, his breathing underwater for the first time would be similar to that of Kal-El’s reaction to foreign air. Arthur was much younger when he first took a breath underwater than Kal-El was when reintroduced to Kryptonian air, but there still should have been some kind of negative reaction since his lungs wouldn’t have necessarily been prepared for that.

Arthur/Aquaman could also propel his body through the water as fast. This maybe isn’t that big of a deal, but when he was shown as a child that Atlantians can do that, he just did it. I would say that he would have to learn how to do that. Just because he should physically be able to do it doesn’t mean that there isn’t a learning process involved.

Also in regards to Arthur being a half-breed, his physical strength was the same as full-blooded Atlantians (which seemed greater than a regular human), his eyes adjusted to the darkness of deeper water just like a full-blooded Atlantian, and except for some kind of Atlantian steel, his skin was completely impenetrable. Since he is supposed to be half of each, it would make more sense for him to have some of the abilities at full capacity but not have any of the rest OR for him to have all of those things but not to the full extent of a full-blooded Atlantian. Both would mean that he was weaker, but he would have to find ways to work around that and come out the hero anyway. In a physical sense, it was almost too easy for him to do what he had to do and still come out on top. Not being on the same level as full-blooded Atlantians would make the job that much harder and reaching the goal would then be more meaningful.

In regards to the ability to move like they do through water, I wish there was some sort of explanation given as to why they don’t appear to not move a muscle yet they can “fly” through water. Maybe something like a mental ability to control or manipulate the water around them that results in them having the ability to effortlessly move through the water.

There was no explanation of how their bodies can better handle the pressure of diving deep into the ocean. They have the ability to see better in water not well lit by the sun so it stands to reason that they would go down pretty deep when they, for example, would go to Atlantis. That would require the need to be able to withstand the pressure, especially for lung expansion when breathing. This may be fiction, but they are still on planet Earth with the same laws of science.

Was their strength supposed to be so great that they could move under water just like they can when on land? When under water movement is made slower due to resistance from water yet there seemed to be none of that in the movie. In addition, the resistance would most likely be greater because of the aforementioned increase in water pressure. Not all, if any, of the fights scenes that took place underwater were just beneath the surface.

Arthur was the only one with yellow-gold eyes. Why? Unless I missed it, he was the only one of Atlantian blood with eyes of that color. It was a neat effect for his eyes to do that when he was communing, if that’s the right word, with the sea life at the aquarium as a kid, but why did they stay that way? I could figure out no reason for his eyes to stay that color on a permanent basis. If there was a reason for it in the comics, they completely ignored it in the movie. What they could have done instead was to have his eyes turn that color in specific situations, like the vampires’ eyes going blue in the Underworld movie series when going into vampire mode.

It bothered me that the half-brother of Arthur/Aquaman had hair that didn’t move in the water like everyone else’s, which I though had been pretty well done. There was nothing in the place to hold his hair like that so… what?... he’s the only Atlantian that uses the world’s most water resistant hair gel? Was the gelled hair supposed to make him look like a bad guy? Since when does the bad guy have to appear evil?

If Atlantians spend all or most of their time underwater where they just float or hover in place, then why did Mera have some kind of high heeled shoe built into her green body suit? What’s the point? Why wouldn’t she just have it where the body suit clings to her feet like it does the rest of the body? And furthermore, why would you build in one type of shoe when a lot of women tend to have and wear different kinds of shoes? If female land dwellers have a plethora of options to choose from, then I don’t see why Atlantian women wouldn’t also have options… assuming they’re even needed.

After Arthur and Mera had come out of the water at the coast of a desert to find some place on land, they got a ride on a plane (that conveniently just landed as they were emerging from the water), and I think they each somehow found a change of clothes at this seemingly-random airstrip. Then, on the plane, you can see that Arthur’s hair was mostly dry, but you could tell that he had recently been wet. She, on the other hand, looked as if she had just stepped out of a salon. How ridiculous. Hollywood needs to get over the idea that female stars can’t look anything less than red carpet ready after just having been soaked from head to toe… or after any other situation in which their hair could never automatically recover with every hair magically being in place.

In the desert, Arthur and Mera have been walking for a while after having jumped out of the plane. When they reach where they are going, they need water in order to activate a device so that they can learn where they need to go for the next step in their journey. Mera has an ability to control water and she gets it from Arthur’s forehead… who has been sweating while walking in the DESERT and HIKING up and down some sand dunes, yet somehow only has enough to equal a small drop of water. Yeah, right! It would have been hot and both of them would have been sweating just from the heat, let alone having to walk in sand… or at least he would have been sweating. She is apparently incapable of sweating… or perspiring. But anyway, she would have been able to get a lot more than she did. Not to mention, the whole set up that required water to run, looked as if it would have needed just a little bit more than a single drop of water. Let’s be a little less cute or whatever and pull some more sweat off the man and not just his forehead! There’s the face, head, neck, back, chest, etc.

How was it that Arthur/Aquaman becomes the One True King by the end of the movie with the trident of golden wonder (as I call it) when I don’t remember him being any kind of a king in the “Justice League” movie or treated like one? There also didn’t seem to be any sparks between him and the Mera character in “Justice League” yet there was clearly an attraction between them by the end of “Aquaman.” Maybe this is yet another inconsistency. It’s almost like how we have multiple Batmans and Spidermans, but at least you know they’re not supposed to be the same because the actor changes. But, with this, it’s the exact same actor… so why have the studio(s) been this inconsistent?

Over the years, Arthur had been working with Vulko on his fighting and his trident skills. There was a scene where you saw that he had not yet mastered the trident but in an end scene it was clear that he had… yet why did that seem to be a surprise to Vulko since he had been his trainer? He would have known more than anyone else what Arthur’s skills were or weren’t. Are we supposed to think that Arthur is so great and awesome that he just magically had mastery over the golden trident because it was his fate to find and acquire it?

How were the Atlantian soldiers supposed to see through their helmets? There was an opening that allowed you to see their mouth and part of the nose, but the eyes were completely covered. I would guess that they would be able to look down with their eyes and see some things through the opening but certainly not when looking forward.

Unless I am mistaken, the tornado-looking thing in the water transports people to the center of the planet. Wouldn’t that mean automatic death? I’ve somewhat grown tired of seeing people go to the center of the planet in movies and not only is there life and vegetation, but there is also light. As in something akin to sunlight. Really??? The center of the earth would be completely lacking in light, not to mention the fact that the center of the earth is made of metal and is thousands of degrees beyond what anyone could withstand. Do we really need to keep fantasizing that the center of the earth is some untouched paradise with or without dinosaurs or anything but instantaneous death?

Just like in Wonder Woman, I was under the impression that everything in creation goes back to Zeus and the mythological Greek gods. If that is the case, then it means that, according to the story, everyone was created. Well, there is a scene that goes into the backstory of how the Atlantians came to live underwater. They were doing something to or with the trident and what they were doing backfired, causing some kind of shockwave to shoot out from the trident and everyone was hit by that shock wave. One of the things that happened, either right away or with the passage of time, is that some of the Atlantians regressed. How could that be? With creation, there is no evolution. Even if there are people that think that there is both evolution along with creation, I do not see how some of the Atlantians could have regressed to something that was less than human if the first ones created were already human. You can’t regress to something that never existed in the first place and I have never before seen a Greek mythology-based story where the created humans had changed from an original creation. It would have made more sense if they said that the trident had altered their DNA, which then affected their outward appearance, intelligence, etc.

Speaking of the trident, it is a TRIdent. Therefore, the trident of golden wonder should only have 3 tines… not 5. They either ignored what a trident really is and did what they wanted to do OR they didn’t pay attention to the detail of the ‘tri’ part of the word. The trident should have had 3 spokes instead of 5 or it should have been given another name.

I would still recommend that anyone watch the movie. Even with all of its flaws, it is still something that can take your mind off of reality for a while. For me, that's the whole point. Thanks for reading.