The Suicide Squad (2021) – a toothless yet competent anti-Avengers story

Reboot/sequel to the terrible 2016 film. This one is written/directed by James Gunn and stars a bunch of good looking people.

Seen in theater with a muted partial crowd

{A video version of this review is on my Youtube page}

Vague thoughts

I’m trying to be less negative, so this is going to be a shorter review than normal. This movie isn’t bad by any means. But I’m not really sure what else it is. It certainly isn’t very good, though. It’s mostly an absence of bad moments, and compared to the dumpster fire version we received in 2016, “absence of bad” looks like a triumph. The movie certainly doesn’t take itself very seriously, which is nice, so it’s also hard to levy any real complaints at it. Does it have a strong emotional core? No. Does it make any grand statements about society? Also no. Is it a fresh take on the superhero genre? Not at all (it’s a reboot of a recent film, after all). And that’s all probably okay because the movie doesn’t want any of those things. So is it high art or a complex character study? Of course not. James Gunn isn’t trying to be Martin Scorsese and he won’t claim to be (hopefully). The problem with not being any of these things or really anything other than a series of sort of fun scenes is that the movie is bizarrely unmemorable. The scenes are fine while you’re watching them, but never elevate above a gorey version of other scenes we’ve all seen a million times at this point. It has a couple of cool new characters at least.

Overall, it seems like a lesser studio trying to make their own Guardians of the Galaxy. It goes for a similar style of juvenile humor, features an ensemble of unknown miscreants, casts a professional wrestler to play against type, and even has a furry rodent friend to stir our hearts. They even poached the same director to make it. However, this is the college drama club version of the Broadway Show it wants to be. James Gunn might have had a fastball when he made the first Guardians, but he’s not throwing strikes anymore.

I have 2 main problems with The Suicide Squad. One is a me-problem and one is an it-problem. The it-problem is that the movie is somehow toothless. The set-up is one I really like: the US government conscripts a group of super-villains to do nearly impossible tasks, keeping them in line by the constant threat of death. This allows us to watch people completely different from our normal heroes (Superman, Spider-man, The Avengers), people we’d normally never root for. And it should be rewarding because we’re watching terrible people struggle to do the right thing. They don’t want to run into that burning building. In fact, they want to add more fuel to the fire and laugh as the world burns. It’s a fun struggle, forcing a bad guy to do something good for once. And we don’t even have to be happy for them because we know they only did something good so they didn’t have their heads literally blown off. It should be a great, twisted viewing experience. But James Gunn for some reason decided to skip out on the “bad guys” being bad part. Sure, we’re told they’re bad (they’re in prison! No way the US government would lock someone away if they’re not a bad person, right?) But save one character (I’m trying to keep this spoiler-free), we have no reason to believe this mission is a struggle for these people. And the more good they do without it bothering them, the more they look like a poor man’s Avengers, and the less they look like the Dirty Dozen. They’re The Slightly Stained Seven. After a little dry cleaning, they’ll be good as new.

The second issue I fully admit is a me-problem. The movie simply isn’t very funny. There’s a lot of what are recognizable as jokes, they’re just not overly clever. I chuckled a few times, I rolled my eyes a few more, and for the rest of the “jokes” I sat in stoney silence. It’s possible these jokes would have hit for me if I was in 7th grade. It’s also possible these jokes were written by someone currently in 7th grade. And good for them, boosting that resume for college.

So should you care? I don’t think so. But I also don’t think most people will regret watching it. A safe, low-effort watch. And you might find yourself going back to watch it again and again, trying to figure out why you can’t ever remember what happened in it.

One good thing: The Ratcatcher character is awesome and added a lot of creative fun to the gang solving problems. She has her own brand of intelligence and empathy.

One bad thing: A career worst performance by Viola Davis. She never seemed like a badass, only someone who wants us to know she wants to be a badass someday.

67/100, meh.

Recommendations? If you liked The Suicide Squad, obviously Guardians of the Galaxy will be up your alley (Vol. 1 is far far superior to Vol. 2, which suffers from similar problems as The Suicide Squad). The new Army of the Dead is on Netflix and is of similar style. And the best recommendation is not a movie, but the Amazon Prime show The Boys. And while you’re there, the new animated show Invincible is excellent.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) – 40 minutes long of being a masterpiece

via IMDb

Directed by Quentin Tarantino. Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, and Margot Robbie

Seen in theater opening weekend with a good crowd

 

Non-spoiler thoughts

I watched this movie six weeks ago and I’m still getting my head around what I think of it. I definitely like it and it definitely is a good movie (these are two separate things), I just can’t decide how much I like it and how good it is. Because I almost love it and it’s possibly a masterpiece, a label I almost never use. We don’t need to get into film history here, but Tarantino’s long-time editor Sally Menke died in 2010 and all his movies since then were obviously edited by other people and are also all, in my opinion, in need of a more aggressive editor. Great scenes become merely good scenes because they never end. This movie is 2 hours and 41 minutes and I suspect that the same film at 2 hours and 1 minute would be a masterpiece. There aren’t bad scenes that need to be cut. There are only good scenes here. They’re just a little too long and sometimes simply too many scenes that serve the same purpose.

Now there are two counters to this. One, I have no idea what I’m talking about and should be shunned (probably this). And two, while this movie certainly has a narrative, the movie isn’t about the narrative. It’s a hangout movie, it’s an experience. The movie isn’t just 40 minutes longer than it could be, instead it allows us to be in this world for 40 minutes more. And as I said, there are no bad scenes. Why lose good material? I just happen to struggle with hangout movies. I’m beholden to the call of the plot and I want to get to the point. Tarantino doesn’t care what I want.

This movie is a delight to watch. I get a sense of joyful peace merely by remembering watching it. If I liked hangout movies, this is the exact type of movie I would want to hang out in. The look, the feel, the sounds. It’s the embodiment of Hollywood nostalgia. Tarantino and his team cared about getting the little details right, and with its length, were able to get everything they wanted on screen casually and naturally. And of course there’s Brad, Leo and Margot. Movie stars being movie stars. Brad might be the coolest person who ever lived and he effortlessly drips with that coolness in every scene. Even when he’s doing stereotypically masculine things that I personally don’t care for, like speeding in a nice car or working on a rooftop, I couldn’t help but think, “man he’s awesome.” Leo is possibly the best actor working and this is up there with his best roles (Wolf of Wall Street and Django are my favorites by him, if you care). He exudes a sensitivity and fragility I’ve never seen from him. And, appropriately, he’s almost the opposite of Brad Pitt here; he’s dorky and awkward and constantly at risk of being out of place. And Robbie might not have a ton to do in the movie (which I’ll get into below), but she really shines every time you see her. You might go into the movie knowing little of Sharon Tate and will leave believing she was a star about to burst. If you didn’t feel bad enough about what the Mansons did to her, this movie really makes you ache for the life and films she didn’t get to make.

 

Spoiler thoughts

What makes this movie stand out is also what I think was overdone. Tarantino does some incredible recreations of old Hollywood Westerns, both TV and movie. He recreates the sets, the costumes, the TV spots, everything. I’ve never seen anything like it. There’s just so much of it, though. We get long scenes from several shows and from multiple movies. And they’re not 12-second scenes. They’re closer to 12-minute scenes. At a certain point, I got everything I was going to get out of the segment and just wanted to move on with the story. That said, one of the best parts of the movie comes from this. Leo screws up a line deep into a scene, and once back in his trailer he freaks out in self-anger. While I felt like the “filming” part of the scene went on way too long, I also know that Leo’s flub wouldn’t seem as frustrating if we hadn’t just experienced the long single take along with him. Perhaps I’ll appreciate the length and detail of this scene more on a second viewing. Perhaps I wouldn’t be bothered by the length in the first place if I liked the Western genre more (and by that, I mean at all). Either way, some other re-creations and montages have less of a payoff and seem to serve the story with diminishing returns. I think a good 20 minutes of this could be trimmed down with nothing lost. Probably even more.

One huge benefit of this movie taking its time with drawn out conversations and minor set-pieces is that tidbits of necessary information are provided to us by un-obvious means. We found out in roundabout ways that Cliff has likely killed someone before. He’s also just as good of a fighter as Bruce Lee. And his dog is perfectly trained. This information is absorbed so slowly and organically that you don’t consciously register, “hey, this is probably important for later.” We get the info as part of a funny moment or as an explanation for a different problem. But then it all comes together in the climax. So while the climax itself might be pretty ridiculous, it also weirdly completely works and you accept it. How could Cliff stop these angry cultists while high? Because that’s not any harder than fighting the best fighter in human history. Would he be willing to kill strangers? Well, he might have killed his own wife, so, yeah, probably. And his dog would have needed to be super well trained in order to attack like that. And we know he was. Not to mention Leo randomly having a flamethrower in his possession. The climax is notable for multiple reasons, at least it all makes sense in this story. And it’s satisfying because we had all the information we needed without realizing it.

I went into the movie pretty blind and ended up really liking the characters Leo and Brad portray. I would have assumed the parts would be reversed and now I can’t imagine it being any other way than what we got. Brad as the jack-of-all-trades stuntman and Leo as the struggling would-be movie star. Despite their roles, though, Brad as Cliff gets the glamorous “movie star” moments of speeding through traffic, flirting with girls at stop lights, and casually fighting in a parking lot wearing a tuxedo. And Leo as Rick desperately wants to be significant, to be the star, but gets no glamor shots. Instead, we see him as a fool floating alone in his swimming pool, struggling to learn his lines for an industry that barely wants him. We see him breaking down in front of a too-smart child with a bright future. It’s perfect. And I loved the direct symbolism of Cliff the Shadow living in the literal shadow of a drive-in movie screen. A drive-in theater, a once -common establishment has since died out along with the Westerns Rick wants to star in. Good stuff.

There’s been a lot of discussion about how much Sharon Tate is actually in the movie. It’s a movie about her murder, so why doesn’t she have more to do, more to say? But if you’ve watched the movie, you know the movie is a fantasy. She doesn’t die. She lives. So maybe the reason she’s presented here as so unimportant is to illustrate the lasting tragedy of her murder: she’s now only known for her death, not her life. People don’t talk about The Wrecking Crew when she’s mentioned, they talk about Charles Manson. So in this movie, where her legacy is not up to a group of deranged hippies, she doesn’t have to be wrapped up in a Hollywood movie plot. She is allowed to live. And we’re finally allowed to think of her as a normal living person. A beautiful, talented, rich person, sure, but normal nonetheless. She gets to go to a party, to drive through the city with her husband, to plan for motherhood. And this mirrors the rest of the story, the parts about Leo. Was Sharon Tate going to be a mega-star? Who knows. Without the murders, she might have just become another forgotten actor, the exact thing that Leo’s character is worried is happening to him. Of course, Sharon, Leo, and everyone in history would prefer to be a forgotten hasbeen than to be known for your brutal murder. But the characters in the movie don’t know that being murdered is on the table. So while Once Upon a Time in Hollywood didn’t turn Sharon Tate into an action hero or any other type of character real life Sharon might have dreamed of playing, it did let her be a real person for a couple of hours, untouched by tragedy. And maybe people will think of her like that, now, instead. Or at least in addition to.

 

One good thing: Margot Robbie as Sharon watching and miming the movements of real Sharon Tate on screen. So charming. So delightful.

One bad thing: The out-of-nowhere narration to explain a time jump felt cheap and lazy.

 

Should you care? Definitely. One of the best working directors working with some of the best working actors. Even if you don’t like it, I bet you’ll have an opinion about it.

80/100

There aren’t really movies like this, but if you liked it, maybe you’ll like The Sting, or Short Cuts, or La La Land. None of those movies are anything alike.

 

Mary Queen of Scots (2018)

via imdb

Starring Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie

Seen in a pretty full theater a couple weeks into the movie’s run.

 

Non-spoilery thoughts

I didn’t have high expectations walking into the theater for Mary Queen of Scots, despite knowing very little about it. I only vaguely knew who each queen was, and since I skip all trailers, I had only seen a couple publicity shots of each actress in full costume. Margot Robbie in her photo looks like I’m a medieval clown, and period pieces like this can sometimes run dull. So I came in only assuming that Saoirse Ronan would be good. Nevertheless, I left the theater quite impressed. Ronan and Robbie were each quite good, of course, and the storyline itself turned out to be intriguing and engaging. I was surprised to discover that several long chunks of the movie were actually pretty thrilling. And the movie has a very strong ending.

 

Spoilery thoughts

One clever thing this film accomplished well was in the parallel stories of the dual queens and how they view each other from afar. They begin of course as open rivals, each with the full support of their own courts, but as the movie progresses we see Mary lose the respect and confidence of her people and her advisers while Elizabeth grows to realize how strong and able her queen cousin actually is. The movie is full of complexities and competing interests among all parties, and the movie has such a fitting end with Elizabeth keeping the throne and living a long life but failing to produce an appropriate English heir, and Mary with the major short term failure of being executed, but the long term triumph of getting her own child and bloodline on both thrones in the end. Neither really win, but neither really lose either. It just depends on what you think the real goal was.

The movie also does some nice work with gender dynamics and commentary on powerful women. Elizabeth is so worried about losing her crown that she refuses to marry, convinced anyone interested in marrying her would have ulterior motives. She knows a man wouldn’t worry about a wife usurping his power, but by refusing to have children, she also ensures that the crown stops with her death. The intricacies of the plot can get a bit tough to follow sometimes, but the general “point” is always apparent and almost always well done.

 

One good thing: The makeup on Margot Robbie was intense.

One bad thing: as the credits rolled, a women loudly announced “that was very inaccurate.” So there’s that.

 

Should you care? If you like this kinda thing, you’ll like this. If not, maybe not. Helpful, I’m sure.

 

75/100, much better than I expected

 

If you liked Mary Queen of Scots, I’m sure you’ve seen Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth. If you wish this was just a bit weirder, then give this year’s The Favourite a shot, too.

I, Tonya (2017)

Directed by Craig Gillespie, starring Margot Robbie and Allison Janney (from the West Wing)

Venue: front corner of a packed theater, alone of course

Vague thoughts: What a cool movie. I’d heard mixed reviews and the topic seemed unnecessary, but man I had a good time. It’s really really funny. It’s also sad or whatever, but you expect all that considering it’s about a poor red neck who has her main competition assaulted. (It’s a true and well-known story, so this shouldn’t be a spoiler. Regardless, it’s mentioned almost immediately in the movie). Anyway, I loved the fast editing style and the rough depiction of all the characters. Robbie and Janney are each fantastic, but they’re each good in everything. I have no real criticisms. There’s a decent amount of domestic violence, so keep that in mind.

Spoiler-y thoughts: I don’t know a ton about ice-skating, but this movie convinced me all the skating talk was accurate. The editing is probably what really makes this movie work (in addition to the acting). The movie jumps back and forth in time, from fake interviews years later to the actual events leading to the olympics. We’re told right away that Tonya nails the triple-axle, but I was still excited for her when she finally lands it in competition. It’s all built up really well, and I’ll now be able to fake criticize real skater’s execution. I love juxtaposition in movies, and one of the best things this one does is make you root for her, despite knowing what’s going to happen. You really buy into how “trashy” everyone is. And the husbands friend is so comically stupid, they had to include real footage of him talking because it’s hard to believe someone could be that dumb.

One good thing: the new best movie about ice skating. Sorry The Cutting Edge.

One bad thing: Robbie obviously isn’t doing all the figure skating. They do a good job with imposing her face on the real skater, but they couldn’t find someone with frizzy hair? It was a bit jarring when Tonya’s hair would change from curly to straight to curly 8 times every routine.

Rating: 83/100, definitely recommend (if you can handle the domestic violence). Will watch again.