'Suicide Squad'

"Worst Film Of 2016" - Rolling Stone

It may actually be that very thing - a terrible film with very few redeeming features.

Here's the obligatory spoiler alert, but would you really care about spoilers with this one?




I mean, that trailer's a little enticing. It could have been something cool.

What's Good About It

In descending order, Will Smith. Margot Robbie.

What's Bad About It

Concept. Execution. Everything in between.

That would include things like, oh, writing, directing, cinematography, editing, production design, sound design, sound mix, casting, wardrobe, acting, and well, all of it is a dog's breakfast. And by bad, I don't mean incompetence like being out of focus or boom mics popping into frame, but more like, an assortment of really poor aesthetic choices, one following the other, with bad pacing, out of control performances, and an utter lack of spatial consideration as to who is standing where as whatever the hell is going on is unfolding haphazardly.

A special note about the awfulness of this film's conception: Jared Leto's Joker is simply toweringly awful. He's hardly worthy of being Batman's big adversary, and maybe a little too young. Also, the fantasy sequence where Harley and Joker enjoy a suburban life of normalised nuclear family domesticity with a baby absolutely fails to understand these characters. As such, it was always going to crash and burn. That can't be Harley's secret desire. It's idiotic in the extreme.

Remember the person back in high school who had the dead set opposite tastes in everything that you were both interested in? You love rock, but they love disco? You love Tolkien, they love Donaldson? You love 'Blade Runner', they love 'Escape From New York'?
It's as if that person made a movie.

What's Interesting About It

I wrote about it with the 'Batman vs Superman' entry but the DCEU is utterly failing to deliver satisfying product. It looks worse because the 4 shows on the CW are pumping out competent product week after week, using some of the same characters as these. As a comparison, the Arrow featured an episode where it was mainly Deadshot and other members of the rogues gallery in that TV series who go on their Suicide Squad run, and while it has less spectacular effects and fight scenes thanks to the lower TV budget, it delivers a coherent story as well as ample characterisation so that the audience never misunderstands why they are doing what they are doing.

It's either the case that the CW shows are punching well above their weight, or the movie version of these characters is utterly failing to deliver the product as promised.

Now, Will Smith makes for a better Deadshot, and Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn is nutty as promised, but there's really not much of substance going on between those two to begin with and even less beyond it with the rest of this miserable film.

I So Wanted It To Be Good

Yeah I did. I really did. A good little picaresque is always great fun. Unfortunately this one was made by people with no sense of humour.

However I've been reflecting on my expectations a little bit and it's interesting that I did want it to be good, because I had zero expectations for 'Batman vs Superman' and 'Rogue One'. I've been asking myself how I could have gotten my hopes up so much. Maybe I sort of expected Warners to lift their game bait based on their recent comic book movie output.
I really didn't expect it to be this lousy.

'Seven Go Around The World'

The classic archetype of this story is called 'Seven Go Around The World'. An oddly assorted bunch assemble to go on an adventure. If the story telling is done right, they are introduced with a cameo and they get to show off their special talent, each of which pays off in a timely manner, somewhere in the plot. That's also the contract this story form takes, so if you don't fulfil it, like this film fails to do, then it looks like you don't know what the hell you're doing.

It's the kind of idea that works better in comic books to begin with, where time and budget aren't an issue, so you can afford the fanciful sidetracks and flashbacks. Because this film cannot and will not afford all the proper affordances, they only sendup covering Deadshot and Harley, and it's not like Harley has a special talent that comes into play at the climax.

The story has too much exposition about who these characters are, with scant thought as to why they are who they are and what truly motivates them. It's amazing that a major studio can turn out a film with so little thought given to character.

Limits Of Comic Book Content (cont.)

Argh. My eternal issue with comic movies is going o be their inability to dig deep. 'The Watchmen' was a great series to read, but when it ended up on the screen, it was a lot less moving and a lot less interesting. 'Iron Man' would start off by tackling the Military Industrial Complex and somehow find a cheap villain with which to distract us. The eternal frustration is that the concepts go nowhere while the CGI explosions an destruction get bigger, wilder, and ever more impossible. What makes it worse is that it comes at us dressed in other genres like science fiction or political fiction, but really, most of the time there is no deeper thought about real problems from which they leap off with their stories.

And that's okay for a laugh if it's 'Guardians of the Galaxy', but with something like 'X-Men: First Class', it ends up being the dopiest telling of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

So what does this film go and do? This film... aims low and manages to shoot beneath it. Maybe one day somebody is going to champion this film and force us to watch it again in order understand its intricacies better but somehow I doubt it. It really is a big, dumb, corporate, bit of entertainment.

Please Don't Spin Off Anything

There's a bit of talk about spinning off Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn into a solo movies and maybe even WillSmith's Deadshot into its own movie. I'ms are they've got the success of 'Deadpool' in mind but they really shouldn't go there. The Warners people haven't exactly been hitting home runs with these comic book movies. If they can't make 'Batman vs Superman' work, and they can't pull together an interesting rendition of 'Suicide Squad', what makes them think they're ready to deliver something like 'Deadpool'?

Dear Warners, please don't go starting now.

Movie Doubles - 'Kingsman: The Secret Service' & 'The Man From U.N.C.L.E.'

The Spy Movie Shoot Out

It's been a long time since the height of the Cold War that we've found ourselves surrounded by an oversupply of Spy genre material. The ever-so-serious incarnation of James Bond movies with Daniel Craig is going to hit us with 'Spectre' sometime soon. The whole re-booted, retooled, re-designed and re-modelled vibe of the Daniel Craig Bond Movies has in a sense opened the door to a reinvestigation of just what the hell Ian Fleming was on about.

'Kingsman' comes from the humble pages of a comic book, while 'The Man From U.N.C.L.E.' is a reboot of an old 1960s TV series. Neither have terribly highbrow origins. If anything they have lowbrow original, much lower than the pot-boiler airport-novella original of James Bond himself. Napoleon Solo and Illya Kuriyakin were indeed parodic figures to the ur-text of Bond. The 'Kingsman' then is like a syncretic re-imaging of the whole genre.

Cool Britannia Struts Its Stuff

Of the two films, 'Kingsman' is far more aligned with the Britishness of the spy genre, and in particular the Bond oeuvre. Through the energetic, youth-market driven frenzy of its stylings, 'Kinsmen' harks back to a Bond who is an Etonian, and ex-Military. And so, Colin Firth gives us his first and possibly last action hero in Agent Galahad. Gone are the rigid reticence of the Mr. Darcys he has played in his career, and in its stead is a high octane super spy, who is trying to pay off a debt.

'The Man From Uncle' also features Hugh Grant, doing a turn as a dapper-but-dour MI6 man - somewhere between the earnestness of 'Tinker Tailer Soldier Spy' and the nerdy-charming bookshop owner in 'Notting Hill' helping Julia Roberts through her submarine script. The casual irony and sarcasm in the face of danger is the hallmark of the British spy genre, and he does not disappoint. And while Henry Cavill plats Napoleon Solo, an art-thief-turned CIA Agent, there is something of the Englishman peeping through his performance. America is simply not all that big in this film.

In both films, it is a given that the British schtick kicks butt. That has to be a tacit nod to Ian Fleming via James Bond.

Dodgy Class Politics

Of course, the problem with Britain is the pernicious class system that keeps on dividing the haves from the have nots. It's hard to escape and immensely oppressive at every turn. If anything would push one towards a desire for the Marxist Revolution, it just might be the class system as deployed in the UK. 'Kinsmen' overtly tries to cross the divide in many ways but the problem lies in the fact that the only way the divide can be crossed is for the lower class to adopt the trappings - and therefore the bullshit - of the upper class.

The working class as portrayed in this film, is so obviously lacking in the kind of virtue required to become a secret spy. Small-minded, ignorant and very unworldly, the working class bumble around to present a backdrop of misery for Eggsy. Even though he identifies with his family and its place in the continuum of working class life, the film couches things in such as ay as to discredit his allegiance to his class. As Eggsy rightly observes, it is 'My Fair Lady' - and it it comes all of the class warfare George Bernard Shaw envisaged.

It's troubling to see that the rebellious youth is in the end, inculcated into the ways of the upper class as a prerequisite to being a super agent. Some of the rather less palatable toffs are shown the door along the way, but ultimately Eggsy has to join them rather than beat them. The trope is repeated several times in the film, and his ultimate confirmation as a secret spy lies in the emulation of Colin Firth's Harry.

'The Man From U.N.C.L.E.' is a lot more egalitarian in its view of class. Apart from Hugh Grant's character Waverly who condescends mightily to Napoleon Solo and Illya Kuriyakin equally because being American and Russian is simultaneously much worse even than being a working class Brit. After all if you are British working class, thefts that could be said of you is that you're British.  What possible hope is there for an American and a Russian?

Still, Kuriyakin is of the working class in Russia, while Solo's origin is a common thief with loftier targets. They don't have to lose their class origins to be better men; they have to rely on them greatly to get them through. It's not much of an affirmation, but it is much more egalitarian than the need to join the upper class before being any good in 'Kingsman'.

What Kind Of Villain Is That?

One of the best observation made by any film critic is the one that points out James Bond never actually goes any where dangerous. it's not as if he's out there in say, Baghdad during the occupation or Kabul as the bombs go off. He is instead going to places with gorgeous beaches, child cocktail drinks, beautifully furnished casinos with gorges women in dress gowns. And so it is with 'Kingsman' where the ultimate villain Richmond Valentine played by Samuel Jackson turns out to be a movie mogul turned apocalypse engineer. Funnier still, Richmond is fully aware of how villains behave in Bond movies, and is determined not to follow suit.

The villains always bring out the camp inBond movies and this is no exception with 'Kingsman' which came into being marinated in the Ian Fleming oeuvre. Samuel L Jackson's Richmond Valentine is ridiculously sensitive to bloodshed while sporting an outrageous lisp. It evokes Mike Tyson (and his incongruous apathy for birds) while also taking big stabs at tech giant Steve Jobs. When the villain gets as camp as Richmond, you get the feeling that the writers aren't really too worried about the world falling into their hands.

'The Man from U.N.C.L.E.' takes a different tack by placing the whole reboot in the 1960s. The bad guys are renegade Nazis, trying to get their hands on the bomb. Of course, being fascists, the bd guys operate out of Rome, and this gives the film ample opportunity to bask in the recreated glory of 60s Italian cinema as well. Then again, it does remind us of 'Hudson Hawk', another comedic action film where fascists stage their plans out of Rome. It's interesting how inevitably Rome interiors are predominantly hotel rooms. This may reflect the tourist experience of writers from abroad. Everybody sports the best Italian fashion, especially the villains.

In any case, neither film is the chief villain all that lethal or threatening. The dastardly plots of the villains in of themselves are meant to be seriously dangerous, but both films are so camp you rarely fear for the protagonists. The action becomes more of a pantomime rather than anything that is loaded with new meaning. We've seen all of this before- so much so 'U.N.C.L.E.' dispense with a crucial fight scene with a bunch slide-frame montages.

The problem for both films is that the violence crosses the border over into gratuitousness wit such abandon, it gets very hard to care about what's going on. Funny is a good thing, but too funny robs both films of gravitas. The tone wavers in both films, although 'Kingsman' is truer to its comic book original than 'U.N.C.L.E' is to its TV roots.

The Reimagined 1960s 

There is something magical about the 1960s being depicted on the screen today. I'll write another entry about it, but basically this instalment of 'The Man from U.N.C.L.E.' shares with 'Mad Men' and incredible fetishistic love of the objects from the 1960s. The production design alone is worth the price of admission. Whiny consider what 'Goldfinger' and 'Dr. No' looked like, this instalment of 'The Man From U.N.C.L.E' gets you right into the ambience, the light, the texture of 1960s colour grades, the grain - but with very modern enhancements. The night sequences are delineated beautifully, and the day action sequences are right in line with the style of 1960s action movies.

It's an odd viewing experience because you sit there wondering if the 1960s really looked like it does on screen The truth is, it very well didn't, but we go along with it anyway because the production design is a tour de force of fetishism. In some ways it is the spy film we've wanted to see for a long time, where secret agents operate with the Cold War in the background, and with very much analogue technology. The limitations make for better story telling.

The past is an ever distant country, but these screen products offer a fantastic tour backing the recent past. it's modern enough to be modern history but just distant enough to bring out the different sensibilities that society has lost. The sexism and racism is good to have lost, but we also managed to lose elegance, style and poise. It's a good trade-off, but I'm sure nobody quite sees it as a trade-off. In a strange way the film posits the 1960s with the Cold War and fear of imminent nuclear armageddon was in fact the fun, innocent times. Maybe it's sardonic commentary of our contemporary world. Maybe it's just well observed, but the film certainly works very hard to charm us through the 1960s.

Armie Hammer as Illya Kuriyakin is also a stroke of genius bit of casting. Nobody does the earnest doofus better than Armie Hammer whose credits include the Winkelivi in 'Social Network' but also the Lone Ranger. It's hard to say he is a flat out leading man type but he is certainly versatile and funny. The earnest doofus of the Russian agent fits right in with the faux innocence of the Cold War.

'X-Men: Days Of Future Past'

1.7 Gigawatts And It's Back to ...1973!

The X-men franchise is getting on a bit. It's always been pretty good,what with the original crew headed up by Hugh Jackman bearing the standard. Some of the entries across the 7 or so films have been less interesting than the others, but overall, the X-men movies are the movies that keep delivering for Fox.

Spoiler alert. Don't proceed if spoilers would ruin it for you.

What's Good About It

1973. Come on, you thought I wouldn't say so? It's a little bit like 'X-men does American Hustle'. It even features Jennifer Lawrence who was quite convincing as a denizen of the 1970s in 'American Hustle'. The scenes of a very hairy Wolverine and Charles Xavier driving around in a Cadillac and wearing brown leather jackets, sporting sideburns was quite fitting. The mimesis of the film is Part 'French Connection', part 'Twelve Monkeys', part 'Dick', but also part ret-conning the 'X-men First Class' movie on to the older X-men movies, this one has some interesting moments of character interplay. And really, it helps a comic book movie greatly if the characters give you something more than just smashing through stuff.

What's Bad About It

I'm not sure the movie makes sense by its own logic. There's something of the story that leaves you a bit miffed when at the climax the bad future fades and disappears. Only Wolverine and Charles Xavier know what happened but there's no real objective evidence for it having happened. In that sense it shares the problems of "it was all a bad dream" ending.

What's Interesting About It

I undersold this movie in the introduction above. It's actually a great sentimental movie, pulsing with the love for these characters. It's downright melodrama, but there's enough of an edge to it to let you forget how melodramatic the story is. The best bits of the film are things like the scene where Wolverine makes the young Charles promise he will put together the X-men and find Jane Gray, Scott and Storm. If we didn't know how important that was - having seen the  earlier films - then how could we ever weigh up the importance of Wolverine's plea?

Some people won't like the sentimentalism of this nature, but after 6 other X-men movies it seems acceptable to have one rendition where everybody is being brought together for great stakes, and for once we get to see past the comic book superhero facade. It's interesting that after 5 films and 1 cameo, Hugh Jackman is exerting such moral authority with his Wolverine character. It's interesting when the young and old Charles Xavier talk. It's interesting when Magneto takes matters into his own hands twice, once as an old man and once as a young man and each time he fails.

The Suffering Of Magneto

Magneto is actually the emblematic character in the X-men movies. The whole cycle of movies started way back when with a beginning rooted in Auschwitz, where we first saw the mutant powers of a Jewish boy who could magnetically manipulate metals, remotely. Having survived the Holocaust, Magneto is hyper-motivated not to suffer the same fate of being on the end of an extermination campaign just because he is a mutant.

Effectively he is facing a pogrom for the second time in his life when the film starts, so in some ways his determination to fight for his cause is far more understandable. As villains go, Magneto's motivation is possibly the most sympathetic. The irony is that he himself is some kind of Nietstzchean superman, so when he decides to take matters into his own hands, he has essentially given in to the inner fascist implanted into him in his childhood. It's totally tragic, because it's almost the moral mirror image of 'Schindler's List' - to survive, he thinks he has to put together a list of people who have to die.

As with all the installments, it is Charles Xavier who has to appeal to his compassion and sense of justness to rein in the runaway fury, but no matter how many times I go back to these X-men movies I can't but help think that may be Charles is fundamentally wrong about the universe he inhabits. If there were mutants with such powers, there may well be a struggle for survival and Magneto would be entirely justified in being as radical as he is. It's a scary thought that puts me in the shoes of Peter Dinklage's character Bolivar Trask. It's actually quite uncomfortable to watch at times.

Tolerance And Takei

On a tangential note, the film has had mixed press about its racial politics. The film kicks off with a multi-cultural, multi-racial bunch of mutants in the future, but they give way to the same old heroic white people in the middle where it counts. I get the criticism for this sort of critique but on another level, it's not like it's the only film that's guilty of populating the important story arc with heroic white people. It's probably some progress Hollywood wants to do things this way than not at all.

Importantly, the film references the original series of Star Trek, which must have been the grand-daddy of all tolerance texts in the history of American screen culture. We see Captain Kirk babbling on about a time travel scenario, and it cuts to George Takei as Mr. Sulu. Mr. Sulu and Lt. Uhura broke huge ground for non-white actors, and consequently the position on tolerance in American society itself. Not only has George Takei stood up for the Asian community, he's been a vocal activist for the LGBT cause, so it's very evocative to see the 'Star Trek' cuts in this film, and reflect on the distance traveled since 1973.

"Dickie's Such An Asshole"

Inevitably, the film features a fictional Richard Nixon. This portrayal of Nixon doesn't have the punch of other portrayals; he's barely there. The gag of the tape recorder in the drawer getting turned off was funny, but otherwise it was a very odd portrait of Nixon, largely untainted by Watergate. I guess we need to be tolerant of a President in history full of interesting foibles too.

The more interesting aspect of going back to 1973 probably is the fact that the last years of the Nixon administration were the years in which faith in the American government was destroyed. not only did America lose the Vietnam war - which is of course touched upon in the story of this film, Nixon ending the gold standard essentially cut the world's currencies adrift, and with it unleashed a multitude of valuation and therefore moral relativism. Part of the reason why the 70s hangs so heavy over this film as well as 'Captain America: Winter Soldier' has its roots in the disintegrating trust in the public institutions that ensued.

The end of the monolithic government started with Richard Nixon and Watergate and really has culminated with Wikileaks and Snowden-in-exile. Is this all Nixon's fault? Most definitely not, but it is an interesting thing to see both Captain America and X-men round in on the Nixon administration as a cornerstone of its re-tellings of history. In that sense, it has a great deal in common with 'The Watchmen' where the reign of Nixon's Presidency does not end and goes into the 1980s. On one level, it arguably did.