Hate to Say I Told You So

It has been well established by now by every review out there - whether positive or negative (and I’ve seen plenty of both) - that Suicide Squad is a mess.  Personally, I had fun with it, but the issues are far too jarring for me to recommend it, or argue with anyone who thought it was utter dog-shit.

The issues are glaring from the off, with the film opening with not one, but two scenes of Amanda Waller explaining her plan to a room of military officials; with the first interspersed with a few quick character bios almost as clumsy and forced as Batman’s Justice League email in BvS.  The trailer featured a line from Rick Flag describing the characters - “Shoots people; burns people; eats people… Crazy person” - that does a far better job of establishing the characters than the opening ten minutes of the actual film.

This clumsiness is prevalent throughout film, with poorly placed and repetitive flashbacks, nonsensical character beats there purely for the sake of plot movement, lazy exposition, terrible pacing...and so on (it’s like a bad Arrow episode).

The list of problems is long and, as I said, already well-established, but I’d like to highlight one in particular.  It’s something I’ve previously mentioned, that I’ve been concerned about since the film was first announced, and a prime example of which we saw in BvS: Who are these people?

Way back in the days when The Dark Knight had just been released, and Marvel’s Avengers experiment was just starting to come together, Warner Bros. announced they would be making a Justice League movie: not kicking off a Justice League cinematic universe - establishing the characters and the world they inhabit - but jumping straight in with Justice League, complete with new versions of all your favourite characters.

It was a terrible idea, and it wasn’t long before internet backlash seemingly made WB see sense, shelve the project and instead allow Christopher Nolan to finish off his Dark Knight trilogy, before bringing him on to oversee a new Superman film that would set the stage for the rest of the Justice League, just as Iron Man did for the Avengers.

Unfortunately, under the hamfisted fan-boy direction of Zack Snyder - that had served him and us surprisingly well on Watchman and 300 - Man of Steel was a dour, tedious, inconsistent, underwhelming mess.

Rather than scratch this off as a false start and hope for better from new Wonder Woman, Flash and Aquaman origins, WB panicked and jumped straight ahead with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

And we all know how that turned out.

One of the few highlights (and possibly the biggest surprise) of BvS was Ben Affleck as Batman - contrary to fan-boy fears the world over (including my own), he proved a good fit for the roles - but that didn’t mean the character himself wasn’t weakly established and poorly represented.  This was a bitter, angry Batman, pushing his violent nature to the extreme, to the point of no longer caring whether he kills.  In one scene, we’re shown a Robin suit, apparently graffitied by the Joker, suggesting Batman’s anger and bitterness stem from the death of the Boy Wonder, as in Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns - an idea confirmed (to some extent) by the presence of the anti-Superman Batsuit from said book - but even in that, when Batman is at his most detached, desperate and willfully violent, he never crosses that line.

Not that you can’t have Batman killing people - if anything, showing the Dark Knight pushed over the edge to a point where he’s perfectly willing to break his one golden rule is an interesting piece of character development - but the issue in BvS is it is not shown.  Yes, we’re given a glimpse of the reason behind his mindset, but how much did that event really change him?  Has this always been a more violent Batman?  Was he closer to Tim Burton’s version, Joel Schumacher’s or Christopher Nolan’s?  Did Robin’s apparent death push him just an inch too far, or completely flip his personality?

The same is true for every character in Suicide Squad.  Amanda Waller calls them ‘The worst of the worst’, but that doesn’t hold up.  All we see of them in the movie is Deadshot is an assassin-for-hire who loves his daughter, and never kills women or children, Killer Croc lives in the sewers, and seemingly only attacks people who attack him, El Diablo is a pacifist,Captain Boomerang is a bank robber and Harley Quinn is a mentally-ill gymnast with Stockholm syndrome.  Hardly the worst humanity has to offer.

In fact, other than Enchantress - an evil spirit awakened from a 2,000 year imprisonment, so understanderbly miffed - the only character who truly shows themselves to be a cold, calculating sociopath is Waller.

The most glaring example of this lack of background, however, is Jared Leto’s much-touted Joker.  After all of the behind-the-scenes reports of how scarily ‘method’ he got with the role, the Joker’s entire on-screen character is that of a violent, but strategic gang boss with a weird growl and an obsession with Quinn.  The elements are all there for this to be an interesting new take on the character - how did he establish himself?  what’s he done to earn his reputation?  why is he so obsessed with Quinn far beyond the simple pleasure the character’s previously taken in having a loyal attractive pet around to play with and abuse as he fancies? - but we get none of this, and as a result, he’s little more than a caricature.

Leto has stated that a lot of his scenes wound up on the cutting-room floor, but no matter what’s in them, I struggle to see how a few deleted scenes would cover the gaping holes in the character.

Again, this isn’t just an issue with Suicide Squad.  We’re now three movies into the DC Cinematic Universe, and the only character with a true origin story is the one character who, not only everyone knows - comic-book fan or not - but whose entire character relies on being consistent and immovable.  In other words, the only character in this whole enterprise who doesn’t need an origin story.*

*I realise we also get Batman’s (wholly unnecessary by now) origin story, but that’s just

why he became Batman, not what turned him into this version of Batman.

In WB’s rush to catch up with Marvel, they’ve completely missed what has made the MCU so successful: namely the balance struck between staying true to the characters’ comic-book origins, while making them accessible enough to a new, cinema-going audience.

That said, at least Suicide Squad has added a sorely-lacking element of fun to the franchise.

Teetotality and Transitions both Terrible and Tremendous

By the balmy bloated ball-sack of Beelzebub, it's been warm!

Rather difficult to concentrate on any form of work or writing when the inescapable heat is causing one's head to throb like the temple vein of an anxiety sufferer caught stripping by their in-laws.

Fortunately, clouds have returned to our scorching British skies, so let's talk cinema.

Absolutely Fabulous (on the slim off-chance you don't know) was a truly inspired show of the nineties and naughties that saw Jennifer Saunders as Edi, a middle-aged woman-child, getting up to all kinds of slapstick debauchery with her best friend, Patsy; a drunken fag-hag and relentless cougar played to gut-busting perfection by Joanna Lumley.  At its best, it was awesome: slick, sharp, acerbic, well observed, geniusly performed by main and supporting cast alike, and with a hit-rate Morcombe & Wise would've been proud of.

Alas it does not translate to the big screen.

To be honest, the show has been flagging for years, since it ran its course over three or four series, before the set-up got tired and attempts to keep it fresh - mostly in the form of cameo-ridden specials - got desperate, but even the last brief TV run had its charm.  Unfortunately, it doesn't fit the feature-length format: the comic timing's off, set-ups are lazy, too obviously telegraphed and/or lacking in pay-off, the characters - always the driving force of the show - have become obnoxious to the point of being insufferable, and the only thing about the whole affair that works - and will always work - is Lumley (because, let's face it, how ever shoddy everything else might get, Patsy is one of the all-time great comedic creations, and will never cease to be magnificent).

Happily, something that did translate well to the big screen was The BFG!

The BFG was by no means the first of the 'spunky little orphan taken on a mystical adventure by a fantastical being' genre, but it remains one of the all-time greats and most beloved, so it was always going to be a risk.

Riskier still in the fact that not a lot happens in the story: it's essentially about the friendship of a little girl and an doddery old man, and what thrills there are mostly don't come until the very end.  As a book, this wasn't much of an issue due to the brilliance of Roald Dahl's writing: his wit and whimsy kept readers hooked, regardless of what was (or wasn't) happening, and managed to be perfect for a pre-teen audience, without ever being patronising to older readers.

Without this luxury on film, even a colourful whimsical setting, and the presence of giants, will only get you so far.  A slow-burn character piece - regardless of setting - must be carried entirely by the cast: in this case, Mark Rylance - seasoned veteran of stage and screen - and Ruby Barnhill - a twelve year-old girl.

Even as a Shakespeare vet., Rylance can't have had an easy time of it, not only having to spend much of his time reacting to nothing but a ball on a stick, but having to deliver an almost alien language and speech pattern as if he'd been using it for millennia.  And it would have been all for nought, of course, if he'd been playing against a bland, obnoxious and/or unconvincing Sophie.

Fortunately, they are both superb; with Rylnace both funny and forlorn; wise, yet oblivious; and Barnhill mixing child-like wonder with a far-beyond-her-years maturity that at no point felt fake or forced.

Couple that with some seamless CGI, an entertaining and colourful supporting cast and Steven Spielberg bringing his '80's A-game, and you get something that had Rhiannon - a devotee of the story in her youth - weeping tears of joy for the best part of two hours.

In other movie news, DC have released a couple of trailers, and, boy, has the reaction to the miserable dross they vomited up a few months back put the shits up them!

First, Wonder Woman:


Along with Batfleck, Gal Gadot was one of the pleasant surprises of BvS.  When she was cast, all I'd seen her in was the Fast and Furious films, where she appeared to lack the muscle mass to lift a tooth-pick.  For her to not only turn up in BvS looking the part, but be the only one of the 'holy trinity' to show some balls against the Incredible Doom Troll was almost as welcome a surprise as the former Mr. JLo's turn as Bruce Wayne.

Her solo outing - by evidence of the trailer, at least - looks to build on the badassery, not just in terms of kicking arse, but in the character's attitude and the way she caries herself.

My one concern is how long that final moment with the secretary is drawn out, but I'll get to that in a sec...


I will say from the off that, yes, this does look better than Dawn of Justice - the new Flash is funny, Mamoa looks like an interesting Aquaman, and DK appears to be less of a right-wing douche - but I have some serious concerns about this 'footage'.

The first is the same concern I have with Suicide Squad:


Who are these people?

Okay, I know who they all are, and anyone who doesn't can look them up on Wikipedia, but this is the first cinematic outing for most of these characters, and brand new interpretations of others, yet we're supposed to care about a history that will likely be dumped on us in exposition.

Whether it be Flash and Cyborg, or Killer Croc and Captain Boomerang, we're being shown these characters for the very first time (BvS's bullshit flash-drive preview does not count) and are expected to give a rat's hairy left bollock about their thoughts, feelings and motivations.

My other concern is the same I have with the end of the Wonder Woman trailer: there is an emphasis on humour (yes, there is in the Suicide Squad trailer, too, but at least there it doesn't feel out of place).

Don't get me wrong, after the previous two outings, this series is clamouring for some levity, but there's a desperation in how hard they're pushing it here, as if WB, in their typical accountancy approach, has looked at Rotten Tomatoes and said:

"Jokes!  We need more jokes!"
"How many more jokes?"
"Well, we're averaging 46%, so 54% more jokes!"

It reminds me of Microsoft's furious back-peddling following their horrific pre-release promotion of the Xbone.

Again, the trailers don't look bad, I just have concerns about WB trying too hard and heading too far the other way.

In other non-movie news, I'm off the booze for a while.  It's been apparent for some time that I drink too regularly, but I generally don't binge.  On Saturday, however, I purposefully only wanted to have a few, but then mixed that with too much wine, and realised afterwards that I am rubbish at restraining myself after a certain point (you can see it in my gut).  So, I'm giving it a rest for a while.

Until Halloween, in fact (save for a friend's birthday in September).

Wish me luck!

(I'm gonna need it)