The Lion King (2019), aka Possibly the Most Unnecessary Movie Ever

RATING: SYSTEM FAILURE

Okay, okay. So I haven't actually gone and watched this movie. As a matter of fact, you probably couldn't pay me to watch this, even if I was a paid critic. I would've just gone and instead watched--*checks the release schedule*--wait, the only other thing came out last weekend in the U.S. was a horror flick called Luz? Ugh.

But wait. Maybe I actually have seen this movie. Because like the vast majority of people, I have watched the original 1994 cartoon. And I have seen trailers/previews of this new one--where they literally compared the footage of the old and the new. And aside from the fact that isn't a hand-drawn cartoon and used photorealistic computer-animation instead, they looked exactly the same. Oh yeah, and the animals could not emote. So I guess I have watched this movie, in a sense.

I try not to gripe on here too much about what people choose to go and pay money to see. But I am truly baffled--no, flabbergasted--at why there would be so much interest in what is practically a shot-for-shot remake. (I know they said otherwise, but c'mon. They really did re-use a lot of the same shots and the plot appears to be exactly the same.) Heck, I am baffled as to why there would be any interest in Disney remaking all their old classics if the originals are so beloved.

Now this may seem slightly hypocritical, given that just last week, I gave a somewhat positive review of this year's Dumbo remake. But there is a *vast* difference between remaking a movie from 1941 that wasn't even all that great to begin with, and remaking a movie that is only 25 years old *and* universally beloved. There's no purpose to serve here (except making money). There's no need to remake a movie that most people feel is basically perfect.

This is creative bankruptcy at its absolute peak. And to me, it is a truly horrifying prospect for cinema when one of the most anticipated movies of the summer not made by Marvel is a remake of a movie that wasn't that old and more importantly, didn't need fixing.

And though I would like to point the finger at Disney (and still will, to a certain extent) for continuing to spit out lazy remake after lazy remake, it's not 100% their fault. They wouldn't keep making these movies if people didn't keep going to see them. Case in point: the new Lion King movie made $191 million on its opening weekend, the biggest opening in July history.

And I ask: why? Why do people go and pay money to watch such a pointless remake like this? If it's because of nostalgia-related reasons, just go and watch the original that you loved so much again (and save money, especially if you already own it). And don't they realize what's happening and what they're doing? By paying money to see a needless remake like this in the theaters, they're just approving and bankrolling Disney to make more of them. And eventually and inevitably, they will screw up one of them super badly and ruin everyone's childhood. Of course, I guess the new Aladdin was close to that for some with Will Smith's genie. But apparently it didn't matter enough, given that it's close to hitting a billion dollars as of this writing. Maybe next year's Mushu-less Mulan will do that instead? Regardless of when it happens, the people will shake their fists at Disney, failing to realize that they brought this upon themselves.

But also what this does is it gives studios like Disney even less incentive than they already have to do more original things--whether it's making an adaptation out of a book or book series that hasn't been done before, or--perish the thought--making a completely new original idea all on their own. Heaven forbid... apparently. And the idea of *remakes* possibly becoming a regular staple of the summer is... nauseating.

Now to be clear, I'm far less concerned about the overabundance of sequels/franchises than I am about remakes. Because while the former can also easily just be a cash grab, there's more potential to do something good and "original," and to do something well-done--even if you're just using the same characters and universe you used in a previous movie. Cases in point--we've sat through six Mission: Impossible movies, and they're only getting *better.* We've sat through 20 MCU movies, and almost all of them have been great.

Obviously examples like that are typically more the exception. And your mileage may vary. And there really are some movies that just don't need sequels, and some "cinematic universes" that just don't need to be. But there's more potential with sequels/franchises, even if it's limited, than there is with this:


Exec 1: "Hey, let's make the exact same movie we made 25 years ago, only this time we'll make it live-action!"
Exec 2: "You're a *genius!* Ideas like that are how we are going to keep making money."
Later: 
1: "Okay, so we're not actually going to make it live-action, we're going to make it photorealistic computer-animation so that it *looks* like live-action, but it actually isn't. Like we did for The Jungle Book."
2: "Even better! You're going places at this company."
Exec 3: "Okay, I have a question. How the heck are we going to make the characters in this movie emote?"
2: "Why does it matter?"
3: "How are we going to make little Simba look sad during the famous 'you've gotta get up!' scene? I mean, we can't do that with a non-cartoon lion.
1: "But it'll look like real lions this time! That's what important here!"
3: "And also... I know this is supposed to be longer than the original, but at its core, is there anything different about this movie from the original?"
2: "Not really, but who cares? The people will line up to see it anyway."
3: "This is starting to sound like a stupid idea."
2: "*You're* stupid. You're fired. Run away and never return."


Bow down to your Disney overlords.

Shazam!

RATING: B+

If you thought Aquaman was an odd choice for the DC Extended Universe to go next after the failure of Justice League, their next stop is even weirder in theory. This superhero movie centers around a hero who was once known as Captain Marvel back in the comic-book days... until Marvel Comics got more popular and they had their *own* Captain Marvel, whose movie we also got recently. Then he became known as... Shazam. 

Yup, what a heck of a superhero name. Actually, that's not really his name... it's the name of the "wizard" who bestows the powers on the main character, Billy Batson. And the ridiculousness of all of this is noted by the movie. The idea is that you say the word "Shazam," and then suddenly you get embodied with various superpowers like super strength, flight, and being bulletproof. Yeah, that sounds a bit like Superman, but "Shazam" isn't quite as invulnerable... and he's a character that's more easily identified with. And this guy can also shoot lightning out of his fingers. Oh yeah, and if you're a bit young for the whole hero thing--14, for example--saying "Shazam" transforms you into a physically perfected adult version of yourself. 

Yes, our main hero character Billy Batson is actually a 14-year-old. And he's a foster kid who's been in and out of a bunch of them. In this latest one (a group home), he gets paired with Freddy, a guy who's a total superhero nerd. And then one day he gets approached by the aforementioned "wizard," who is actually dying and passes on his abilities to Billy. And now Billy, who knows absolutely nothing about superheroes, needs Freddy's help to figure out the whole superhero thing. Eventually, he'll have to face down his first foes... in the form of one Thaddeus Sivania and... the Seven Deadly Sins. Yes, *those* Seven Deadly Sins. More on that later. 

This movie is quite a bit of fun. There's plenty of humor to be had--whether it's Billy and Freddy testing out possible superhero abilities, or the film poking fun at its own concept occasionally, or just other amusing things. However, there are a couple of key differences here between this and the last couple of DC films which tried to insert this. It's more organic, for one thing; the light-heartedness does not feel out of place, like it sometimes did in Justice League. But this one also becomes the first installment in the DC Universe to adequately balance the light-hearted material with some of the darker material that they're known for. Justice League failed at this, and Aquaman didn't really even try, choosing to opt for the former instead. 

Another area where this movie is an improvement over previous ones in its villain; some people griped about Marvel villains for a while before Thanos showed up, but DC's actually arguably had a much worse rut. Steppenwolf was a complete failure. Aquaman's best villain wasn't even the primary one. And don't get me started on Suicide Squad. But while Sivania isn't spectacular or anything, he's a lot better than anything DC's had in quite a while. This in part because Mark Strong brings a certain presence to the role, but it also helps that this villain has a well-done backstory that helps explain his motivations--or at least, why he's as twisted as he is. 

However, one of the main issues with this movie is the side antagonists--the Seven Deadly Sins. I'm aware that they were part of the comics that this is based on, but given their religious origins, their presence in this is kind of bizarre. Here, they're essentially just generic monsters that are indistinguishable from each other. And there's not exactly a whole lot of connection to the vices whose names they share (although someone does get consumed by Greed--literally). I get that they were a part of the comics, but they could've made these "Deadly Sins" monsters more coherent--or just replaced with them with other supernatural baddies that still turn Sivania to the dark side. 

There's another part of this movie that's a little head-scratching. Basically, Freddy tries teaching Billy how to be a superhero, as previously mentioned. However, in the application of using the newfound powers/testing them up, the two divulge in some non-heroic silliness, taking advantage of the situation (played mostly for laughs as well as part of "the hero's journey"). However, later Freddy calls Billy out on his actions and recklessness--which makes no sense because earlier in the movie Freddy was encouraging (or at least not discouraging) these actions in the first place. 

Despite some such misfires, Shazam is still one of the best things to come out of the DC Universe--and even though that might not feel like saying much, this is still genuinely a good movie. It's fun and exciting, and doesn't stink of mediocrity (Justice League), silly writing (Aquaman), or incoherence (Batman v Superman). The DC Universe now has one more good thing going for it besides Wonder Woman. The DC Universe still feels like it's in a bit of limbo, but it does seem at this point like they're better at stand-alone movies than at trying to rip off The Avengers. 

Dumbo (2019)

RATING: B-

There are few things I despise more coming out of Hollywood these days than this string of Disney remaking all their old *and* still relatively recent animated classics. It's creative bankruptcy taken to levels of insanity. But I will rant more about that later in a separate post... trust me. (Next week, actually.) 

Anyway, there was *one* remake in the list that caught my mild interest--and that was Dumbo. Why? For starters, because it's a Tim Burton movie. And while not all of his movies are my cup of tea, he is one of the most creative and imaginative minds in Hollywood, so I usually try to give most of his works a shot. 

The other thing is... the original Dumbo actually isn't all that good. It wasn't without a couple good moments, but it's ludicrously short (64 minutes!) and despite that short length, there's still not very much happening in the movie. Dumbo doesn't even learn to fly until near the very end. And it also contained some really annoying side characters. 

Dumbo was one of the very, very few Disney animated classics that could've actually used a do-over. And they got Tim Burton to direct it, which was quite fitting--the story of a character born with some kind of mutation that is actually a gift, but he is an outcast for it. Edward Scissorhands, anyone? 

So yes, this is still the story of the baby elephant (*not* delivered by storks this time--I think) who is born at a traveling circus (led by Danny DeVito) with unusually large ears; and he discovers that somehow with these ears/wings, he can fly. And that's one thing this version gets right--Dumbo flies much, much earlier. The immediate difference here is that instead of being helped out by a talking mouse, Dumbo is helped out by some humans--namely, a pair of siblings whose mother is dead and whose father has just come back from WWI with a missing arm. 

This version does seem to get a lot right particularly in its first half. The story and plot move along more organically. Sometimes it's a little by-the-numbers, but there's never really any annoyances along the way. And some impressive CGI gives us a baby elephant with very expressive eyes, which helps us be endeared to the little guy quickly (if the eyes aren't too "uncanny-valley" for you, that is). 

Of course, given how short the source material is, this version was bound to have make up some completely brand new material. And that--in the second half--is where things get a little off the rails. Michael Keaton shows up to buy Danny DeVito's circus, and then proceeds to play a megalomaniac entrepreneur so cartoonishly villainous, the only thing he was missing was a mustache to twirl. While Keaton does alright at hamming it up, the character is annoying because there doesn't seem to be much motivation behind a lot of his evil actions--not even money at times. 

The other main issue with this film is the fact that they felt the need to re-do the famous/infamous "pink elephants" sequence for some reason. Except this time, it's not an acid trip; it's some bubble-blowing sorcery, and it somehow feels even more pointless. At least this is fairly short, though. 

Still, the film kind of gets its act together again towards the end when it sort of mirrors the end of the cartoon. The result is a short genuinely feel-good sequence with a human element added to it. There seems to be some belief among some that this movie doesn't have the heart of the original, but there was enough for me. And to be frank, I don't remember the original having a dramatic amount of heart aside from that one heartbreaking scene we all remember (which is also kind of repeated here). 

Even though some of the human characters are forgettable, there's still some good performances. Danny DeVito particularly stands out; Colin Farrell and Keaton are fine as well. However, child actress Nico Parker is also notable as of one two siblings who befriend Dumbo. 

Burton's version of Dumbo isn't outstanding or anything, but it's a very rare (almost nonexistent) breed among the Disney remakes in that it actually outdoes the original. And again, it's also a very rare breed among the remakes in that its existence feels more justified. This is worth a watch if you're a fan of Tim Burton movies at all. 

The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part

RATING: D+

It's been five years, but we finally got a sequel to The LEGO Movie, which was one of the biggest surprises of "wow this is actually really good" movies in recent memory. Since then, we got a couple of spin-offs--once centered around LEGO Batman, which was quite hilarious and memorable as well. Then there was the LEGO Ninjago Movie, which was quite a bit more forgettable. But now we're going back to the characters we know and love from the original LEGO Movie, and as that movie would say, everything is going to be awesome! Right? Right...? Oh dear.

This movie starts off by picking up literally where the first one left off; however, after about five minutes, we have a time-skip of five years. Now the former Bricksburg (or whatever it was called) is basically a post-apocalyptic wasteland due to the attacks of the Duplo aliens. Everyone has had to adjust to a tougher life, and toughen up themselves in the process. All except Emmett, who is still convinced that "everything is awesome." However, things get crazy again when a new alien connected to the Duplo lot shows up--General Mayhem--and kidnaps most of Emmett's friends, who now must go after them and save them.

Let's cut to the chase: this movie is not that good. This is the second animated movie sequel I've seen recently which really was a huge step down from its predecessor and also went bizarrely off the rails (Ralph Breaks the Internet being the other). There are a ton of problems with this movie, some of which I can't go into very much without revealing spoilers.

First off... the plot. It does start off pretty promising with a post-apocalyptic version of Bricksburg, but once we go into space, it goes downhill from there. Like the first one, the events of this movie are basically in the imaginations of a real kid--only this time it's two kids. And this brother and sister have very serious differences on how to play with LEGOs. Those differences are solvable in real life, but in a movie, those differences are irreconcilable. I mean, how are you supposed to mix a sci-fi/post-apocalyptic adventure with an elementary girl's imagined LEGO space wedding? (Yeah, I know... they're both space-related. But trust me, they do not mix.)

But the real problem is that the movie tries to make the sister out as the victim of having her LEGO toys messed up when she tries to play with her brother... but the problem is, she actually *steals* LEGO toys from her brother. (I don't consider this a spoiler, because if you saw the first movie, you know about the events of these movies just being imagined... and it's kind of easy to see what Mayhem's capturing of Emmett's friends symbolizes.) While that doesn't justify the brother's response (which I won't reveal), I find it difficult to have much sympathy for the sister.

This is another big issue with the movie, though: there's very little subterfuge or surprise this time. Possibly because we already know that these movies take place in the imagination of children, they don't even bother trying to hide it this time. Most namely, the name of an actual LEGO apocalypse is clearly a reference to a real-world character as well. So it's pretty easy to guess what's going to happen in that regard. There are other twists that you don't necessarily see coming, but the problem is... they're not good ones. Namely in who the identity of the real villain is.

There are two more key things I take incredible issue with in this movie. First is what happens to LEGO Batman. He's quite dumbed down in this one and doesn't actually do much memorable... except do a musical number with a shape-shifting alien queen. Yes, seriously. And that's memorable for all the wrong reasons, which segues into the second other key issue I have with this movie -- there are a few musical numbers in it. I am honestly befuddled and confused as to why musical numbers (which we also saw one of in Ralph Breaks the Internet) are suddenly making a comeback. Maybe they appeal to certain people... but I just find it annoying.

After four paragraphs of explaining why this movie is really not good, you'd think there would not be much positive to say. But there are still some good moments. Probably the best part is actually the first action scene after the five-year time skip, which basically feels like a LEGO version of a Mad Max: Fury Road chase. And that's actually pretty awesome. And there are still several laughs to be had; some of them are related to the other LEGO Justice League members. Also, there's the character Rex Dangervest, and while his character is a separate can of worms, he has pet LEGO raptors... and those are cool.

But ultimately, we have another failure of a kids-movie sequel--just like Ralph Breaks the Internet, which this movie actually has a few subtle things in common with. This movie does have a certain message, and I get what it's trying to say. But it is executed so, so poorly. I'm not sure how the makers of this movie thought this was supposed to be entertaining; and heck, the laughs even generally disappear in the second half. And this is all the more bizarre because the first LEGO Movie was inventive, surprising, and generally a joy to watch. The only thing of those that this movie is would be maybe inventive. But it's possible for a movie to be inventive and still be terrible.

Glass

RATING: B-

If one is familiar with M. Night Shyamalan at all, then they've probably heard of Unbreakable--which was probably his most popular film after The Sixth Sense. It was a pretty unusual superhero movie that didn't rely on source material, and had more in common with the thriller genre than with action. Still, it was pretty good and some who watched it hoped for a sequel... which never happened. Then Split happened, which was sort of a resurgence for M. Night, and it was revealed to take place in the same universe as Unbreakable. And because of the success of Split, M. Night was able to make a final chapter that acted as a sequel to both Unbreakable *and* Split... as well as a final entry in a trilogy of sorts. And thus we have Glass. 

This takes place shortly after Split (which I actually never watched), and Kevin/The Horde/The Beast/James McAvoy's character is still on the loose. And at this point, David Dunn is trying to hunt him. However, both of them end up in the hands of a psychiatrist named Dr. Staple who already has Elijah Price/Mr. Glass, and she is out to prove that in fact they do not possess superhuman abilities. All the while, Mr. Glass, being the super-genius he is, has something up his sleeve for the occasion.

I am left with kind of mixed feelings on this movie. First off, it moves rather slowly at times during the first half, although this is a common trait of Shyamalan movies. But the bigger issue is the whole "you're not really superheroes" game Dr. Staple tries to play with the three main characters. Even though it does kind of serve a purpose, it's still rather irritating at times to see her attempt to twist events of previous movies when we *know* for a fact that at least David and Kevin *are* superhuman. It also comes off as kind of silly when, after a rant by Dr. Staple, her motivations seem for a moment to basically be "I hate Comic-Con." (This is not the case, but it's kind of a bizarre dig.)

The second half is certainly a lot more interesting. It's also a lot more bonkers, resulting in an ending that's insane even by Shyamalan standards--both in good and bad ways. There's a bit of pretty awesome payoff, but there's also a sense of disappointment. Whatever the case, the ending probably isn't what you may expect.

M. Night seemed to be tasking himself with going against normal superhero conventions (while still making a sly wink here and there to superhero clichés), which had to be quite tough in a Hollywood environment that is heavily saturated with superhero movies--much more so than was the case when Unbreakable was released, when Spider-Man hadn't even hit the big screen yet and the X-Men would only do so for the first time that same year. M. Night does kind of succeed at that task... but it does come at a little bit of a cost.

What does work without a doubt is some of the acting. James McAvoy and Samuel L. Jackson are both superb. In particular, McAvoy's ability to convey different personalities so well is insane. You probably already knew this if you saw Split, but it's worth mentioning anyway because he's just that good. Bruce Willis does seem to be unfortunately phoning it in a little bit this time... but on the other hand, that could just be because of who he has to share the screen with.

Glass is a movie that both works quite well in some ways and then kind of doesn't in some others. To a certain degree, it's typical Shyamalan pulling out the rug from under us. The difference is that unlike in some of his other endings, this one isn't altogether satisfying. As previously stated, it still works in some regards. But I find it hard to imagine that there won't be some people who are disappointed. Still, this is a generally pretty interesting follow-up to Unbreakable and Split and a unique installment in the superhero genre, so it does deserve some credit--even if it never really stands out the way Unbreakable did.

Avengers: Endgame

RATING: A-

Here we are at last, at the end of it all--at least until Marvel starts another new saga in their massive Cinematic Universe, anyway. But this is the final movie of the saga that started with Iron Man, Thor, and The Avengers. After about 20 or so movies and 10 years, and after basically giving us The Empire Strikes Back (and then some) of superhero movies last year with Infinity War, Marvel's ready to give us the close to the Infinity Stones/Thanos arc.

When we last left the Avengers, they were in pretty bad shape--since they had not only lost to Thanos, but lost half their comrades and in the process half of all life in the universe had died. And yet, the surviving Avengers (mostly just the original Avengers, plus Rocket, Rhodey and Nebula) aren't ready to give up yet. For one thing, they want to make Thanos pay. But if there's a chance at all that they can reverse what he did... they want to take it as well. But as one of them points out, that's not going to be easy--even with a few extra hands they didn't have in the last movie, namely Ant-Man, Hawkeye and Captain Marvel. 

Little more can be said about the plot than that, because the marketing deliberately did not reveal very much. And because of the extra outcry from folks (including the directors themselves), I'm going to try harder than usual to avoid even vague spoilers. So I'll just say what I can. 

First off, this is certainly a great movie and a mostly satisfying conclusion for sure. It doesn't quite reach the heights of Infinity War, but that's simply because IW took risks and did things that hadn't been done in the genre before. Hence why earlier I called it The Empire Strikes Back of superhero movies. Endgame isn't without such moments either, but some of the plot devices it *does* rely on feel slightly more familiar... and also a little more flimsy at times. 

Yes, Endgame is slightly more sloppily plotted at times. Regarding a certain plot device which shall be unnamed, there are a couple contradictions and just some things that make no sense. But often during these moments I often found that I just didn't care. Those are more heavily invested in this series and not more casual viewers may feel the same way. And for the most part, the general plot/idea works--even if it feels like it literally would not work anywhere else than a comic-book movie. 

And even if one finds themselves a little frustrated with a couple of the plot devices used and some of the pacing, they still ought to find themselves quite fulfilled by the final hour. The final act is basically the single biggest comic-book nerd/geek fever dream ever brought to life, and so much awesome stuff happens during that part that even I were writing a spoiler-filled review for some reason, I could not possibly cover it all. 

Beyond that, a lot of character arcs are pretty satisfyingly handled. Some fare better than others, but namely Iron Man's, Captain America's, and (surprisingly) Hawkeye's stand out. On another note, while some may be disappointed to find that Captain Marvel really doesn't play as big of a role in this movie as you'd expect, she still shines when she is present--and doesn't feel *too* overpowered versus the general competition here.

Elsewhere in the movie, I liked how they took some time to shed light on the effects of the Snap on Earth--and just how devastating it would be in general. One scene in particular of Ant-Man wondering his old neighborhood, which now looks like a post-apocalyptic wasteland, stands out. But even amidst all the tragedy, coping, and action, there's still a good amount of levity--particularly in the first half. In general, it does not feel out of place and they tone it down a bit for the more serious final third of the movie.

Endgame is not a perfect concluding movie. But it's still pretty doggone good and generally satisfying, and it's difficult to see scarcely anyone who's been invested in this series for a while being disappointed. Some may like it more than others, as some will be more forgiving of some of the plot holes. And even if I felt a little annoyed with a couple parts here and there, it's all worth it purely for that final battle--because that bit is about as awesome as anything you will ever see in a superhero movie. 

Aquaman

RATING: C+

When we last left the DC Extended Universe, they were truly on life support. The last movie they'd made before this was Justice League--which was a mess of a movie in multiple facets. At that point, the only good thing about the DCEU was Wonder Woman. So what's next for the DCEU? Apparently, it's making a movie about your dumbest superhero. Sure, they made Aquaman somewhat passable in Justice League, but he was still probably the least-needed hero of the bunch. Why would we want a movie about the guy whose abilities are breathing underwater and talking to fish? 

The premise of this movie is that Arthur Curry/Aquaman is the heir to the throne of the underwater kingdom Atlantis. Yup, Atlantis is a thing in this movie. What complicates matters is that he is a "half-breed"--child of an "Atlantean" and a human. Which kind of makes him an outcast from that underwater world. But he's kind of okay with that. Until his half-brother and current Atlantean king Orm decides he wants to unite all seven of the underwater kingdoms and lead a war against the surface world. So how is Aquaman and his compatriot Mera going to stop him? By finding a mythical trident MacGuffin that would make Aquaman "the one true king." Or something. 

Probably one of the biggest problems with this movie (aside from its unnecessary length) is that the plot, while not bad, is quite derivative. This is basically Black Panther and Thor, but underwater. But also let's include the whole "chosen one" trope crossed with the "half-breed" trope, and also the quest for the mythical MacGuffin. Like I said, it's not really a bad plot--it's just unoriginal and completely devoid of any surprises or twists. And the dialogue that comes with it is often pretty poor or just silly. The phrase "one true king" is repeated too often, and these underwater societies are so annoyingly obsessed with pure blood that you might think you're in a Harry Potter movie. 

With all of this (and more to be mentioned), it's kind of amazing that this movie sort of works--or at least, it's not bad. For one thing, the visuals underwater are often pretty astounding (and perhaps a bit overwhelming) to look at. They put a lot of detail into the places and creatures down here. While not all of the action scenes work, a couple do; namely the extended fight with Black Manta about halfway through, who really should've had a bigger role in this (more on that later). The opening scene where Aquaman infiltrates a submarine and decks pretty much everyone on there is also quite fun. Elsewhere, our two main leads Jason Momoa and Amber Heard play off each pretty well, which leads to some decent banter at times. 

The final act is a mixed bag--at first, we get a pretty awesome colossal war between various underwater factions. But once Aquaman shows up, it's over all too quick. He defeats his enemy too easily. It doesn't help that Orm isn't really as interesting a villain as Black Manta at all. The latter has more interesting motivations and also a cool villainous outfit during the signature fight scene with him. Orm's motivations are limited to "I don't like humans because they pollute the water." He's supposed to be a cross between Killmonger and Loki, but he's not as effective as either one. 

Some commentary on the length needs to be made as well. I'm not often one to complain about movies being too long... but this one is definitely longer than it needs to be at 143 minutes. While Justice League was too short, this one is just too long and probably should've been cut down by about 20 minutes. This along with the derivative plot makes it feel like DC really has no idea how to make a truly good movie. It seems like Wonder Woman was not good because of DC, but despite them. Man of Steel is the only other one they've made that was above average. 

While Aquaman is fairly entertaining and a bit of a step up after Justice League, it's still weighed down by DC shooting themselves in the foot too much. And while I suppose they deserve credit for making their worst superhero passable, this is still merely average material. If you're a big fan of DC or the superhero genre in general, I suppose this is worth a watch. But probably only the one.