Aquaman: Nothing Original, but Learning to Have Fun

Dear Readers,

Lucky you! Two reviews in as many days!  Honestly, I went and saw both Mary Poppins Returns and Aquaman on Tuesday, and if I don’t write the review immediately, I won’t get to it at all (because I am a terrible slacker), so you all get a double header this week.

I am not entirely sure how to begin talking about Aquaman, so I’m going to start with the thoughts of friends and family who saw it first.  One friend said, “Aquaman was like having melted Skittles poured in your eyes, in a good way… the most faithful representation of comics I have seen in a movie, with all the good and bad that implies.”  My sister summed up the film as, “Maui from Moana and the Little Mermaid go on an Indiana Jones adventure.”  Each of these summaries hits the good and bad of the film.  Aquaman was a fun superhero romp that had some really nice visuals, some fun characters, was surprisingly faithful to the comics, and didn’t really do anything too original.

Since the inception of the D.C. cinematic universe, the films have struggled with tone, script, and story.  Films like Batman v. Superman, Justice League, and Suicide Squad, all struggled with a basic understanding of the characters they portrayed, and while Wonder Woman was very well done, in my opinion it still did not ascend to the heights that Marvel has shown superhero films can reach.  Aquaman is a good step forward for the D.C. universe, as the film demonstrates a solid understanding of the characters and comics it is based on, and does not take itself too seriously.  This shift in tone makes the film feel a lot more Marvel-esque than previous D.C. properties, and certainly does not deliberately alienate fans of the character and comics.  It is very much a “back to the basics” superhero flick; a film that tells a basic superhero origin story with interesting visuals and (for the most part) engaging characters.  While it does not rise to the level of Wonder Woman, it is a solid film that is a step forward from the other D.C. properties and that can solidly compete with the low/mid-level Marvel properties (it’s no Avengers, but could definitely compete with something like Ant Man and is better than, say, Thor: the Dark World or Avengers Age of Ultron).

The story follows Arthur Curry (Aquaman) as he tries to stop a way between the underwater kingdom of Atlantis and the “surface world.”  In the process he teams up with Mera, an Atlantean princess, and totally badass water-bending sorceress to recover king Atlan’s trident, a mythical weapon that will allow him to become ruler of the oceans.  What follows is a slapdash mix of Indiana Jones treasure hunting, and space-opera style sub-marine battles that take great advantage of the three dimensional movement allowed by underwater fighting.  As origin stories go there is nothing original here, although not necessarily in the way one might initially think.  The fantasy “lost heir” trope is very strong in this film, as Arthur struggles with his feelings of inadequacy and abandonment, gets his butt thoroughly kicked in multiple fight sequences, only to rise above and try to claim his kingdom.  If you know the trope, there are absolutely no surprises in this film, however, it still plays out in an enjoyable and engaging manner.  At no point did I feel like the film was moving too slow; the pacing was very good, intermixing action, slow romantic moments, flashbacks, and character development in a surprisingly balanced manner.  The film certainly did not feel long; I was surprised to realize it was close to 2 1/2 hours.  Occasionally the story did feel a little convoluted (there was a lot of ground covered, and as I mentioned before, the story stays pretty faithful to the comics) as we were introduced to a large number of supplementary characters including two of Aquaman’s greatest villains, with both of their backstories.  Overall, however, it was pretty easy to keep track of who was doing what, where, and why.

While the acting performances in this film were not really anything special, all the characters were engaging and interesting enough to move forward.  Jason Momoa is a great fit for Aquaman, somehow managing to balance an “everyman” or even a total “bro” vibe while also embodying the physique of a demi-god (with the occasional regality to back it up).  His performance is charming and heartfelt if not subtle, and a very interesting supporting brings the diverse and quirky Atlantean population to life.

Visually, again, the film doesn’t really do anything new, but it does not disappoint either.  The underwater battles in particular are fun to watch; very reminiscent of of the three dimensional movement one sees in space battles or dogfights, while also making good use of things like current and radical temperature change that are unique to the ocean.  Where the film occasionally struggles with the action is in the one on one fights between Arthur and his half brother Orm; while there are well constructed and engaging it does sometimes feel like the characters are more engaged in a “pose-off” than in an actual life and death fight.  But this criticism is negligible, and honestly, who doesn’t want to see Jason Momoa in as many poses as possible (or maybe that’s just me).

If I had to sum up Aquaman in a sentence, I’d say it is “the lovechild of a stereotypical superhero movie and a fantasy lost heir bildungsroman, with all the faults, foibles, and epic bad-assery that implies.”  Aquaman does nothing new, but it executes the old tropes well and with a burning enthusiasm that was not present in many of the prior D.C. projects.  It doesn’t try to be dark and gritty, it doesn’t try to be something new, it simply enjoys being a comic book movie, which frankly, is a step forward for D.C.

Well, back to reality!

"Mary Poppins Returns" with the Same Magic

Dear Readers,

Sequels are always a funny thing.  It is hard to make a film that lives up to the nostalgia of a first time experience.  Hew too closely to the original, and you end up with a stale repeat that has no surprises and disappoints all but those who dearly loved the original.  Change too much, and you alienate the target audience who came to see a film that matches their experience of the original, a film that fails to embody the “spirit” of the original.  This is why second films are often disliked, and remakes, prequels, and reboots are so often hit-and-miss.  It is supremely difficult to recapture the joy in originality, the nostalgia of a childhood favorite, or the wonder of a new experience.

That being said, it is possible to create a sequel that can embody the spirit of an original and still feel fresh, exciting, and wonderful.  This is the case with Mary Poppins Returns, the musical release of the 2018 Christmas season.  Picking up 20 years after the events of the original Mary Poppins,  the story follows Jane and Micheal Banks as adults, and Micheal’s children, John, Anabel, and Georgie, as they struggle with the loss of Micheal’s wife and the financial woes of the 1930’s.  The film is an extravaganza of color, whimsy, and imagination, and, like the original, also takes time to wrestle with the more difficult aspects of parenting, with grief, and with the burden of financial struggles.  For each excursion into psychedelic whimsy there is a sombre reminder of the pressures of reality, as characters learn to apply imagination to their everyday problems instead of using it merely as an escape from those problems.  In short, Mary Poppins Returns manages to walk the fine line between nostalgia replication and original storytelling by telling the flip side of the same story and approaching the same conventions from the perspective of a family that has lost its whimsy to the pressures of adulthood instead of a family that is fragmented because of its pursuit of individual satisfactions.

That is not to say that Mary Poppins Returns is a perfect sequel.  It does stay very close to the outline of the first film… many of the events of the story follow beat for beat those of the original, particularly in the placement and content of the songs.  This is, however, a minor criticism, which is more than made up for by the clever writing and truly fantastic imaginative scope those songs display.  Another criticism that will surely come up is of Lin Manuel Miranda’s lamplighter, Jack.  Much like Dick Van Dyke in the original, his “British” accent comes and goes, especially during the songs.  Again, however, this is a minor criticism and can be written off as a character choice designed to more closely align the character with Van Dyke’s Bert as the almost magical working class character who is actually a better and more responsible adult than Mary Poppins herself.

These criticisms aside, there is so much this film does right.  Emily Blunt is fantastic as Mary Poppins; she manages to embody many of the traits of the original: the egotism, the instantaneous shift between the magical and straight-laced nanny, without it seeming like she was trying to “do” Julie Andrews.  All of the children do well in their roles, and Ben Wishaw and Emily Mortimer are delightful as the adult versions of Jane and Micheal Banks.  Wishaw in particular gives a stunning performance as the burden of the family’s financial struggles drives Micheal into behaving more and more like his father, without ever losing his relatability and likability.  His opening song, “A Conversation” is breathtakingly heartfelt and poignant, and serves as the foundation for the development of his character throughout the film.  While Wishaw’s acting chops are peerless, Lin Manuel Miranda also gives a delightful performance, and it is the charm, wonder, and the surprising wisdom he brings to the character of Jack that makes him a true heir to Dick Van Dyke’s Bert (rather than his questionable “British” accent).


Visually, Mary Poppins Returns does an excellent job of maintaining the spirit of the original while also creating something new.  in particular, the costuming for the film was exceptional; every article of clothing seemed chosen to particularly match the character, scene, and emotion being conveyed, with an excruciating attention to detail and creativity.  The animated sections match the tone of those of the original, while incorporating a unique style that reflects the difference of art style between the chalk art drawing and the china bowl painting.  Similarly, the “Trip a Little Light Fantastic” song and dance number, while deliberately paralleling “Step in Time” incorporates a dance, acrobatic, and vocal style that makes it a unique experience that at once pays homage to the original while also acknowledging the evolution of dance and music since.  For me, the only visual sequence that fell short was the finale, “Nowhere to Go but Up.”  Be aware there are some slight spoilers coming up, so if you want a pure viewing experience, stop here and go see the movie before coming back and reading on.  “Nowhere to Go but Up” is a psychedelic finale that involves all the main characters choosing balloons and floating/flying over the spring fair.  It is supposed to be reminiscent of “Let’s Go Fly a Kite,” in the original, however, it breaks the illusion created by both the original and the events of the movie prior Mary Poppins' magic is for children, while her influence on adults simply pushes them toward making the right decision for their families.  It might have been a more effective finale to have adults and children alike celebrating and enjoying the spring fair without the blatant magic of the balloon flights.  The final message of Mary Poppins always seemed to me to be about finding magic in the mundane but beautiful aspects of life; street art, laughter, flying a kite, all of these are magical even without “real” magic.  But by making the balloons actually lift the holders off the ground, the everyday magic is minimized which undercuts the entire premise of the story.  From a purely visual standpoint, the scene struggles as well, as many of the characters look awkward and out of place during their flights, which undercuts the assumption that they are enjoying themselves with a purely childlike wonder.  Again, this is a minor criticism; I’m sure many will disagree with my assessment of the scene, and overall its impact on the power of the story is minimal.

All in all, “Mary Poppins Returns” was a joyous celebration of imagination, family, and whimsy, and well worth a seeing.  It is the only film so far season that I definitively want to see again in theaters, and that I plan on recommending to everyone.  A fun family film that does justice to the spirit of the original while also managing to remain unique and creatively engaging.

Well, back to reality!