I have to give the reviewer here credit for recognizing his situation.
Me: By now, the DC cinematic universe has lowered expectations to such a degree that “Aquaman” actually seems pretty alright. It’s not “Wonder Woman”-good, but it’s miles more likable than “Justice League” or “Suicide Squad.” If it’s as dumb, loud and overlong as any of the DC movies, it at least has a charm and sense of humor that jell agreeably with the ridiculousness of the story.
Because, in the end, Aquaman is not a movie for me. It, like Thor: Ragnarok, is at best a movie for the 8 to 15 year old version of me who still lives in my head somewhere. Which is OK, because that version of me still gets to see all the fun stuff that they’re making now, and then go Wheeeeeee. I can live with that.
Moe Lane
PS: Anybody else get the vibe from the review that the reviewer actually more or less agrees with the 8 year old, but just doesn’t want to admit it? …No? Just me, then? OK.
Have you seen Anna and the Apocalypse? I don’t even like musicals, but I enjoyed it.
I got the same feeling; it’s like he’s ashamed to admit he had fun watching a flick that doesn’t have much of any deeper meaning to it.
Maybe he’s got a rep for snark that he’s afraid he’ll damage.
Eh… I don’t really get that vibe. You mention Thor: Ragnarok, and I suspect that works as an explanation of what’s going on in the review. For lots of reasons that had nothing whatsoever to do with basic fun factor, imo Thor: Ragnarok was flawed. But that didn’t change the fact that Thor: Ragnarok was a lot of fun to watch. I think the reviewer is trying to describe the same kind of phenomenon in Aquaman. Apparently he thinks that Aquaman as a film and story is weak, with some obvious flaws. However, the movie is so much fun to watch that you’ll find yourself enjoying Aquaman despite those issues.