Aquaman (2018)

”Show off... I could have just peed on it."

Unusually for a superhero movie, I'm going in blind. For once I know pretty much naff all about the superhero in question and his supporting cast. What I do know, though, is that DC Universe movies, to the extent that's still a thing, have been decidedly mixed. Fortunately, the gods be praised, this is a Wonder Woman and not a Justice League.

Some of the typical DC sins are found here as well, mind; CGI abounds and, certainly, it makes for a visually impressive and rather awesome set of scenes in Atlantis with Atlanteans riding sharks and giant turtles as beasts of burden, but we also get CGI countryside, de-wrinkled faces and all sorts of unnecessary nonsense.

I know nothing of DC’s Atlantis (I’m a Sub-Mariner kind of guy) but we get a real exploration of its history, fantastic though it seems- an ancient technological civilisation (are they Minoans? Is Atlantis in the Med? They seem a bit Greek to me, culturally) which sank because of hubris and where there are now various different kingdoms which are disunited and where, in spite of only a few thousand years presumably passing, people have evolved very differently- one kingdom is of met-people.

In spite of visually following the unfortunate DC house style, though, this film is warm and human, and solidly entertaining. It helps that Jason Momoa’s Aquaman is likeable- humble, bloke USA and fun-loving, a hero you could have a pint with. And the plot is a solid little quest narrative as Aquaman follows a series of tasks to retain a weapon which can be lifted only by the one true king and which shows his right to rule- no surprise he happens to be called Arthur. He also knows his early Roman history, which is a plus.

The cast is superb, too, although the appearance of Amber Heard leads to the same awkwardness as appearances by Johnny Depp- one of them is a domestic abuser, and we know not which. But it’s great to see the great Dolph Lundgren, Willem Dafoe, and even Nicole Kidman is actually pretty good. This is a good old-fashioned blockbuster, and fun with it.

Saw (2004)

“I want to play a game…”

I’ll be honest; most of what I’d heard about Saw had been very negative, with the phrase “torture porn” being bandied about a lot. But I wanted to give it a chance, especially as my very lovely girlfriend is a huge fan. And, well, it’s gory, but it isn‘t what I expected at all.

To begin with, there’s absolutely no way that this is a horror film in any way whatsoever; it’s a violent thriller. Chills and suspense do not feature in any way. And the central conceit, of a criminal who torments his victims with “games” where they have to use their wits and their suffering) to survive, is a brilliant concept, though rather evil. Yes, it looks less than lavish, and the American accents from Cary Elwes and creator Leigh Whannell are often arse-clenchingly embarrassing, but I rather enjoyed the film. Which is a good thing, as my girlfriend has brought a lot of DVD’s of Twisted Pictures films to our new home, and no fewer than four of them are still in my backlog of films to review…

The mystery unfolds perfectly, starting out like a rather less glamorous version of The Crystal Maze but expanding to become more and more horrible. There’s also a strong aspect of the police procedural; I’m reminded more of Seven than any slasher movie I’ve seen. It’s gory, yes; very gory. But this film, at least, doesn’t seem to justify the label “torture porn”, although I accept there’s nastiness on show. The more dominant impression I have is of very, very clever plotting. The final montage revealing, we;;, not everything but enough for now, is all the more powerful for consisting mainly of snippets of scenes we’ve already seen, showing us that we had the clues all along.

Best of all is that Jigsaw, with that iconic, nightmare-inducingly ugly puppet, is a bloody brilliant baddie. THAT voice is just perfect, as is the revelation of his identity. Ironically, though, the puppet is a puppet master, having all sorts of effects on all of the other characters, and not just the ones whom he directly manipulates. Danny Glover’s obsessed police detective is every bit as manipulated by him as are the two main protagonists, Most interesting is Amanda, who genuinely seems to think she’s been helped.

Adam and the good doctor are ciphers, perhaps, but effective ones- the impulsive young man driven by id and emotion versus the repressed cold fish driven by duty. There’s a nice role reversal as Adam becomes increasingly logical and the doctor slowly loses it to the point of sawing his own leg off. This may not be the most three-dimensional kind of character development, but it’s enough to add depth to the film and ensure that there’s more to it than gore and clever plotting.

So… I liked the first film. What of the second…?