https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

Movie Review: "Suicide Squad" (2016)

[Minimal spoilers in the post; no guarantees about the comments]

When the trailers for SS started coming out, I was hooked. I've always loved the concept anyway, have read at least 3/4 of the various runs of the comic, and doing a mad-cap, dark, comedic, violent, anti-hero action flick sounded like a hoot, and looked great on the screen.

Then, about a week ago, pre-release reviews from critics started landing. Utter disaster. Horrible. Why can't DC make good movies? What went wrong with "Suicide Squad."

But I had already decided I was going to go opening night, hoping against hope.

And …

… well, I'm mostly glad I did.

The movie falls well short of the promise of the trailers, but it's hardly a dud. Call it a Thor: The Dark World class of movie, with some fun bits, some interesting action, some moments of true coolness, but enough stuff that doesn't quite pay off or should never have been included in the first place to make it less than what it could have been.

No regrets about seeing it, but it will likely be a while before I want to see it again.

Let's start with the up sides, of which there are several.

1. Those who like continuity and Easter Eggs will have a good time here. From Midway City (alas, no Hawkman) to Ace Chemicals to classic Harley costumes (and imagery), there are lots of little rewards here.

2. While I blow hot and cold on Will Smith, I thought he made an effective, passionate, and ruthless Deadshot. His backstory and motivations were nicely in keeping with what's been established previously for the character.

3. Margot Robbie is a delicious Harley Quinn. She does such a nice job, I'm almost willing to put up with the excessive amount of Joker-Harley screen time (both in present and in flashback). Almost. I'd rather have seen a Harley Quinn movie first so that a lot of that could have been dispensed with.

4. Ditto on all counts for Jared Leto's Joker. It was a nice rendition, sufficiently different from Heather Ledger (et al.) but well in keeping with the character. There was just waaaaaay too much of him, to the detriment of everyone else (with, apparently, a lot more shot that never made it to the final release).

5. Viola Davis, when allowed to, does a pretty darned good Amanda Waller. While not quite "the Wall," she's not the young, skinny fashion models we've seen in too many recent screen renditions of the character. And she definitely carries the sense of being able to handle herself.

6. The SFX were pretty nice, particularly the smoke effects around the Enchantress (in all her guises).

7. The use of known popular tunes as scene setters was not a bad thing, though some of these tunes have been so overused that they probably need to be retired.

8. The attempt to create a story about families — estranged families, dead families, fantasy families, supernatural brother-and-sister families, and the families we choose for ourselves — was audacious and had some places where it at least partially gelled; ultimately, alas, it got crowded out too badly.

9. Flaws aside (see below), it was overall fun. Not mind-blowing fun, not even necessarily memorable fun, but I've certainly spent a worse few hours in a movie theater.

Now for the down sides, of which there are many, though rarely of profound, cognitively dissonant, tearing-the-eyes-out badness:

1. There are too many characters here. You have the Squad (Deadshot, Harley Quinn, Captain Boomerang, Killer Croc, El Diablo, Hangman, Slipknot). You have Flag. You have Flag's people. You have Waller. You have Joker. You have Katana. You have the Enchantress. It would be very difficult to properly balance that many characters — and the movie does a piss-poor job of even trying. Some characters (the top-billed actor ones) get tons of screen time, backstory, vignettes, introductions, temptations, etc. Others get a few key scenes but end up feeling undeveloped. Others are literally just along for the ride.

Don't get me wrong — most of the characters who get overfocused on are pretty good, but the movie feels terribly unbalanced. For all Guardians of the Galaxy or the Avengers film have had large casts, they've done a much better job of sharing the wealth.

2. Way too much of the movie is long walks down rubble-strewn streets at night. Or through rubble-strewn buildings at night. It almost feels like a video game, and a lot of the resulting action further wastes time, giving the whole proceeding something of a rushed feeling with manufactured emotions.

3. Speaking of that action, way too many of the (many) battles are full of too much shaky-cam, dust-and-smoke, quick-cut, shadowy night to be able to focus on much of anything. It speaks of bad fight choreography or jumped-up film editing.

4. While most of the characters who get much characterization time are well done, Rick Flag [Joel Kinnaman] is not only an annoying character — a bully, a failure as a leader, and a jerk — but he's with us all the freaking time. My dislike of the character tinges practically the whole movie.

5. The villain (and secondary villain) (neither counting Waller) was a mixed bag; early on she was excellent both in effect and appearance, but for most of the movie she's playing a poor man's Imhotep.

6. There are appearances by the previously established DC cinematic heroes. While these are mostly appropriate, they also feel oddly inserted into the proceedings. On the other hand, apparently there was some screwing around with the film at Warner Bros.' behest, to make it less grim, more funny, in the aftermath of the critical drubbing Batman v Superman took.

7. The basic premise of the movie — the creation of a team that could take down a Bad Superman, should one come up — is never fulfilled. The Squad as constituted is nowhere near Superman-level power (a decent Batman could give them a run for their money), and when faced with an extinction-level event, their mission turns out to be annoyingly off-course.

8. For all that I loved Amanda Waller here in some ways, in other ways I had problems with her. She's ruthless, but too often that comes across as pettiness. She has a strong sense of mission, but seems just as interested in saving her own skin. She's willing to sacrifice villains, but commits some wetwork of her own. And the denouement scene was … poorly constructed and out of character.

In the end, SS tries to do too much with too many characters, run through formulaic battles, to be as good as I'd have loved it to be. Guardians of the Galaxy sort of did the same anti-hero shtick, but kept the core group smaller. The Avengers films have had as many people on screen, but benefited hugely by have most of them already established from their own movies, sparing us the need for origin stories for everyone.

I'm disappointed that it didn't live up to its potential (or even its advertised goodness), but the lambasting it's receiving feels more opportunistic than warranted. As a guy who loves the Suicide Squad through multiple incarnations, I'm more than happy to have seen this film.

(For those wanting something better, though, I heartily recommend the animated Batman: Assault on Arkham, which, despite the title, is really a Suicide Squad movie. For that matter I even more recommend the "Task Force X" episode of Justice League Unlimited for a bit more covert version of the Squad.)

 

View on Google+

155 view(s)  

3 thoughts on “Movie Review: "Suicide Squad" (2016)”

  1. Doing a quick parse through the (mostly negative) reviews, http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/suicide-squad-film-review-915825 hits things best: "A puzzlingly confused undertaking that never becomes as cool as it thinks it is, Suicide Squad assembles an all-star team of supervillains and then doesn’t know what to do with them."

    I'm becoming more convinced, as I read about the struggles that went on behind the scenes with direction for the whole thing (and a revolving door of editors), that WB is largely to blame, first for picking someone who was going to do something gritty and dark, then for releasing a trailer that was distinctly not that, then for getting into a panic over Batman v Superman, then for forcing a mish-mosh of incomplete compromises to lighten the tone but lose the artistic thread of the movie.

    Still fun, but pulled in too many incomplete directions.

  2. Sadly, the so-called brains behind the DC movies haven't figured it out. They need to do their own thing. Instead, they want to be on the same level of Marvel. Without doing the foundation work. Batman v Superman was way too soon. Neither character has the background of their comic counterparts in Dark Knight Returns so there's honestly no reason for the darker grimmer Superman to hold back.

    Suicide Squad needed to wait. Joker should've been introduced in a Batman movie, and Harley could've made her initial appearance there, too. Flash should've gotten his own movie, with an appearance from Captain Boomerang. Instead, DC goes for the team film because Marvel has already had a couple. I worry about Justice League having the same problem, too much crap crammed into one film because the studio was too impatient to tell the story the right way.

    I'll probably be seeing this on Sunday but it's sad that it's not as awesome as it could be.

  3. +Marty S. And.yes, this movie demonstrted the danger of a large cast PLUS having to give everyone's origin stories and establish their personalities and MOs.

    One review I read said, "Rather than starting with a bang or a boom, this starts with a 3-ring binder," which could actually have worked (cf. Mission: Impossible starting with a stack of file folders), except when they decided they didn't want it to be a four hour movie and stopped the detailed briefing after the "important" cast members were introduced.

    Also cf. the tonally similar Guardians of the Galaxy. They managed to flesh out (sorta) five characters over the course of the film, at least pretty adequately, and it worked. If they had tossed in two or three more Guardians (as much as everyone wanted Bug or Moondragon or Phyla Vell, etc.) it would have been the same mess. In Space.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *