Barbie.

Review #2049: Barbie.

Cast: 

Margot Robbie (Barbie), Ryan Gosling (Ken), America Ferrera (Gloria), Kate McKinnon (Weird Barbie), Issa Rae (President Barbie), Rhea Perlman (Ruth), Will Ferrell (CEO of Mattel), Michael Cera (Allan), Ariana Greenblatt (Sasha), Helen Mirren (Narrator) Directed by Greta Gerwig (#1983 - Lady Bird)

Review: 

“My mom would check out books [Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls] from the library about parenting, and then I would read them. They’re funny and brash and confident, and then they just—stop. How is this journey the same thing that a teenage girl feels? All of a sudden, she thinks, Oh, I’m not good enough.”

I'm sure at least one of you had a childhood experience with the Barbie doll. Ruth Handler popularized the doll that was named after her daughter after seeing her play with paper dolls. Noting the limitations that come with such "one-dimensional" function, Handler obviously saw an opening for an adult-bodied doll and so she suggested it to her fellow co-founder of Mattel in Elliot Handler that led to the start of the Barbie in 1959. Actually, Handler couldn't get her idea accepted for mass production and she had let go of the idea for a time. But a family trip in Europe led to her seeing a doll called Bild Lilli that got the creative process rolling again. The doll was actually merchandise for the Lilli comic strip (as created by Reinhard Beuthien) that was being published in the German tabloid Bild. The adult-sized doll, complete with a look described by Handler as "naive and clever" when it comes to red lips and winged eyeliner, was clearly something to "take inspiration" for well, Barbie. I mention this if only because the film has a character named "Ruth". Anyway, there have been a handful of films and television based on Mattel products, such as Masters of the Universe or Max Steel, or, well, the dozens and dozens of direct-to-video Barbie films. But the road to making a live action Barbie film took over a dozen years of development that had various people attached to star or direct, so here we are with a film loaded with various Barbies and Kens that I'm sure some of you already know about (sorry folks, this childhood was dedicated to any odd little toy that came along, whether that was Lego, or heaven forbid, the Slinky). The film was written by Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach, which occurred after Margot Robbie (star and co-producer) asked the former about serving as writer/director.

Oh hell, I picked the movie because I wanted to know what exactly one was going to see in a film that has Mattel near the front of the line in production companies listed (right next to Warner Bros.). What type of possible Faustian bargain with corporate overlords could possibly happen here? Given the amount of folks I saw in line for the film (with quite a few in pink), I'm sure that at least one of them will be surprised with what they see on screen, parent or not. Well, whatever you expect, you could probably throw that out the window. If the script is described as one done in "literally imaginative play", the film seems to have plenty of varying inspirations, whether that involves old Technicolor musicals such as The Red Shoes, but I'm sure folks familiar with Pinocchio will make an interesting observation. But hey, that film did not have a "Techni-Barbie" template or present two distinct moments within its first thirty minutes that detail someone asking if they think of death or stating if they have genitals. It is the kind of movie where the lead performance is basically equivalent to a person that doesn't have a voice in their head that likes to make note of just where self-discovery goes when it comes to, well, when one is Barbie and the other is "& Ken". The deal of expectations versus reality in a world that is most certainly not the same as the one that saw Barbie come onto the eyes of children everywhere is at least a useful quandary to present in a film that never really stops reminding you of, well, its title subject. This is an interesting tightrope that reminded me of another product-named film with The Lego Movie (2014), so go with me on this for a moment: a movie based a product built on imagination for children (not like all boys played with just Legos) with an ordinary (or stereotypical in this case) lead character going on an adventure built on entering the real world to deal with something that could seep into their world. Of course, that film was about creativity while this deals with finding one's identity and surely an interesting discussion about feminism that more knowledgeable people can talk about than me (coincidentally, both of those movies happen to feature Will Ferrell as a businessman). For me, the Lego movie handled its goals better, but obviously it's up to you to interpret which is which.

With all of that in mind, Robbie pulls in the best performance of the film, one that has honesty in the route of discovery that comes from going from an earnest figure of self to one wrapped in crisis that she handles gamely. It is an adventure with a handful of useful gags involving the very nature of "Barbieland", and she manages to make it work in timing without selling herself short. Of course, who better to serve the other part of the double-act than Gosling, who sells the other side of self-realized identity that starts with the most basic point of "the beach" and goes on from there with pathos and sincerity. In a world that doesn't think about "just Ken", he is more than (k)enough in presenting the conflict necessary from what might as well really be a Barbie-version of the Garden of Eden (no guesses for which sounds easier to talk about between theology and patriarchy). The rest of the cast (which includes a handful of other versions of Barbie and Ken in small bits (such as Kingsley Ben-Adir and Simu Liu as Ken #1 and #2, respectively) do fine, setting up the contrast between the two worlds and societies with useful warmth, mostly with Ferrera or the active McKinnon. Folks who are invested more into what the movie aims for (analysis or in the crosshairs of wondering what the fuss is about with Barbie being a movie brand) will find plenty to surely come back to in another viewing while others might just let it go by the wayside. For me, it is a reliably average time, and that is better than being a hollow thud or being a shocking mess, as it is instead about as goofy as it might sound under the surface. I think the 114-minute runtime is just about what I expected for a film that ultimately achieves some of its goals when it comes to entertainment for an entertaining execution in style and certain lines (who among us can resist a long-worded good-girl master plan for the climax), so there may be hope yet for one not seeing their favorite star or director not be thought of as sold their soul to the plastic machine. Would I want to see Mattel become the type of thing that inspires a hodgepodge of films based on their products like a certain cinematic universe? Absolutely not, unless they are actually worth seeing in a theater, one that can maintain some sort of imagination beyond the usual attempts shelled out already. So yes, the movie is just fine for those who are curious or already set on seeing it on the biggest screen possible. 

Of course. there exists another film that is opening the same day as this one...

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Babylon.

Review #1948: Babylon.

Cast: 

Brad Pitt (Jack Conrad), Margot Robbie (Nellie LaRoy), Diego Calva (Manny Torres), Jean Smart (Elinor St. John), Jovan Adepo (Sidney Palmer), Li Jun Li (Lady Fay Zhu), P. J. Byrne (Max), Lukas Haas (George Munn), Olivia Hamilton (Ruth Adler), Max Minghella (Irving Thalberg), Rory Scovel (The Count), Katherine Waterston (Estelle Conrad), Tobey Maguire (James McKay), Flea (Bob Levine), Jeff Garlin (Don Wallach), Eric Roberts (Robert Roy), Ethan Suplee (Wilson), Samara Weaving (Constance Moore), Olivia Wilde (Ina Conrad), Spike Jonze (Otto), and Telvin Griffin (Reggie) Written and Directed by Damien Chazelle (#1146 - First Man and #1577 - La La Land)

Review: 

I am sure you remember this film, one released at the last month of the year that is already considered a massive flop with audiences as a "polarizing" movie. There have been quite a few films that are basically "moviemaking love letters", such as Singin' in the Rain, The Player, Boogie Nights, The Artist, or Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Perhaps there is inspiration taken from Kenneth Anger's infamous 1959 book Hollywood Babylon, a book about alleged scandals of Hollywood stars from the silent era that is full of flat-out fallacies, myths, and exaggerations (most notably claiming that Clara Bow once had a night of relations with the entire USC football team). So yes, there are mostly fictional characters present in the film (that take inspiration from real-life folks such as Clara Bow) with a few real names such as William Randolph Hearst or James Wong Howe. One thing I can respect is the fact that Chazelle and company had the balls to actually release the film in theaters. Yes, it seems a bit silly for any studio to need $250 million to apparently break even with a film about a tale of over-ambition and excess in the early Hollywood era, but it is always worth it to see films like this in a theater, packed or not. Decadence and depravity never looked so good in a theater, and I was happy to see this tale of ridiculousness, albeit in an empty theater that meant I could loudly watch the movie on my own terms.

Obviously, any scholars of the silent era can attest to the accuracy of a film depicting a certain time and age. But since we are watching a film that is trying to have its cake and eating it too, how much does it matter? Is it really important that the rage of the time might have been more about morphine rather than cocaine? (Wallace Reid died from trying to kick the habit of it, incidentally). To me, the movie may be presented as a "comedy-drama", but to me it really serves as a twisted "Hollywood Horror" story. I don't think I have ever seen a film that has such a love and hatred of everything it wants to be about, one that practically is screaming for its own head to be cut off so they can eat themselves whole. What other movie shows has a litany of images such as elephant defecating on people, urination on people, projectile vomiting, and the uncomfortable truth that, well, anyone is disposable in the moviemaking world. It is as self-indulgent as you would expect for a film that is 189 minutes long that is clearly not for everyone. I respect Chazelle for daring to make movies that try to be distinct from each other, whether that involves overrated LA love-letters such as La La Land or calm biopics such as First Man. It is the craft of obsession that matters most for Chazelle - now, whether that means Babylon is anything more than a glorified campground for debauchery is another matter. I enjoyed the movie, but it is understandable that someone else won't be as big on it as a gonzo weirdo film to experience in all of its senses that it draws out for three hours. Watching a movie that takes inspiration from the stories of people such as John Gilbert, Clara Bow, and Dorothy Arzner isn't a terrible thing to waste. 

Robbie has manic energy and physical bravado that swallows the film whole in dazzling charm that is meant to emulate "it girls" such as Clara Bow (it is Bow who once stated that she just had to think about "home" when it came to crying on cue). Of course, her self-destruction isn't quite like Bow, but Robbie makes the role her own in ferocious edge that makes it an absorbing performance beyond just being a brash fighter from the ground up, which makes the resulting tragedy all the more interesting. The same goes for Pitt in all of his bravado and melancholy, representing the falling star with tremendous confidence in where he believes the role must go to make it that more poetic in how it ends up. These two may be weird and wild in their gusto, but they are still people that you can still find worth your attention. Calva is fine to act around them, with a semi-effective story of soul-stirring passion that isn't too far removed from the action or the bigger names that come and go. Smart provides worthy support in acid-tongued charm that would make Hedda Hopper blush. Adepo and Jun Li are neat in their own ways when it comes to filling an ensemble of a certain time and place with roles that aren't merely there for the sake of being there, whether that involves a cabaret act or a particularly somber scene of a man being convinced to darken his skin for the sake of "film". The best all-around sequence is one involving the depiction of a filming day that sees a variety of amusing mishaps on the way to movie magic. Of course, the sequence involving Robbie and company trying to get one successful take on a sound set is exquisite in all of the painful ways that make it both tragic and amusing. Pitt and his inevitable fall from the stars is a close second, but that scene with Smart involving how one could be immortal in a sense by what they did on celluloid is right on the spot.

Personally, the supporting cast members are far more interesting to see. Calva, Smart, Adepo, Jun Li, yeah sure. Forget Garlin and all of those other names, this is a movie where you can see actors like Eric Roberts and Ethan Suplee have little scenes to make their mark (the former drunkenly stumbles onto a snake fight and the latter spits a bunch, but still). Hell, Tobey Maguire and his makeup that reminds one of a ghoul going around trying to show a producer a subterranean gathering space for debauched party of the underground is splendid to view in a perverse sense. You haven't lived in the world of weird film-land until you see what the hell one does for "fun" with a pale druggie that could top a man eating a rat. The bottom line that comes from the film is that a movie takes plenty of hard-nosed circumstance and crap to work its way into something for the rest of the world to see, and that it sure was a party for those who got to be a part of it. Any good movie worth their salt will have splendid cinematography, which is the case here by Linus Sandgren, as this really is a movie that pops in all the right ways, while Justin Hurwitz provides worthwhile music. The only thing that may rankle anyone daring enough to see the film all the way through in the row of debauchery is the ending, since it is a film that wants to have the whole cake of running through the gamut in a montage of films that dawned after the silent era came and went (such as Singin' in the Rain or 2001: A Space Odyssey, for example). It just seems quite unnecessary to have the montage for what really could've just ended a bit shorter when it comes to the image of a man looking back at a long-gone era interpreted by the status quo of Hollywood and weeping. I guess it depends on how one feels about a movie all about the debauchery of people in Hollywood going from weird and wild in the 1920s to, well, sound and less wild in the sound era...ending with a "gee, look at what film became!". Maybe that shameless rug pull is supposed to be the point. So, is the film and the response it received from audience some sort of representation of the movie-making landscape in 2022 when it comes to the divide between streaming and theater-aimed features or between the divide of "blockbusters" versus "movies for adults"? Having seen the film for myself, I can only state this: who gives a shit? Either you will like this movie for its sheer audacity or not care for it, it does not get any simpler than that. I personally think it is a secret film in human horror that screams at the viewer as much as it screams at itself. I doubt I will return to seeing this film in the near future, but screw it, the film is pretty weird, pretty loud, and all around...pretty bold to do what it does in wild child style. The fate of the film and its plot may be inevitable, but that is where the fun is.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Another year, another time. This closes out Movie Night's twelfth year of operation (hence the end of using a particular twelve-sided shape in every title card, hint hint), which has seen a review ten times on New Years' Eve, and this is the third straight Eve to close out with a movie from the year that was. 2022 ended with 1,781 total reviews, which means I did 167 reviews for Season 12. This is the fifth busiest year in Movie Night history, but the best is yet to come. Review #2000 looms, but the big thing is the advent of theme months to start the first quarter of the year to spotlight plenty of new and familiar faces in cinema. With that in mind, Have a Happy New Year in 2023.

The Wolf of Wall Street.

Review #1567: The Wolf of Wall Street.

Cast:
Leonardo DiCaprio (Jordan Belfort), Jonah Hill (Donnie Azoff), Margot Robbie (Naomi Lapaglia), Kyle Chandler (Patrick Denham), Rob Reiner (Max Belfort), Jon Bernthal (Brad Bodnick), Matthew McConaughey (Mark Hanna), Jon Favreau (Manny Riskin), Jean Dujardin (Jean-Jacques Saurel), Joanna Lumley (Aunt Emma), Cristin Milioti (Teresa Petrillo), Aya Cash (Janet), Christine Ebersole (Leah Belfort), Shea Whigham (Captain Ted Beecham), Katarina Cas (Chantalle Bodnick), Stephanie Kurtzuba (Kimmie Belzer), P. J. Byrne (Nicky Koskoff), Kenneth Choi (Chester Ming), and Brian Sacca (Robbie Feinberg) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver, #992 - The King of Comedy, #1276 - Mean Streets, #1463 - Raging Bull, #1496 - Goodfellas, #1544 - The Departed, and #1559 - Hugo)

Review:
"If you look at what occurred in the world of finance—many times now and it will probably happen again—you really have to ask the questions: Is dishonesty acceptable? Aren’t people expected to go too far?”

"It’s interesting, because I have been doing this since I was 13. I am almost about to turn 40, and I am looking back at some of the stuff I’ve gotten to do, and at the center of it is this amazing accidental collaboration that I’ve gotten to have with Marty.”

There have been quite a number of director-actor teams over the prevailing decades of cinema, and one could only hope to make one as worthwhile and engaging for both on and behind the camera as Martin Scorsese with Leonardo DiCaprio. They haven't worked with each other as much as another certain duo involving Scorsese, but their five films together have served each other well in terms of audience appeal and curiosity over people at the prime of who they are in direction and acting. Both were well-regarded names before the 21st century had even started, and their first collaboration together would be with Gangs of New York (2002). This is the fifth film that they had made together as star director and actor (with a sixth collaboration reportedly coming sometime in this decade). DiCaprio had wanted to make this film since 2007 when it was brought to his attention by producer Alexandra Milchan, finding interest in its portrayal of people addicted to obtaining wealth by any means necessary and the "author's singular transparency"; this would also attract Scorsese to the project as well to direct alongside produce with DiCaprio and others, while Terence Winter (most known for his writing work on The Sopranos and developer/writer of Boardwalk Empire) was brought in to write the screenplay.

Undeniably, it will spark thoughts of Goodfellas (1990), Scarface (1983), or especially Wall Street (1987). Sometimes one has to embrace the madness that comes from a movie like this, a film with no shame or qualms about showing the nature of depravity within trying to make money alongside uncompromising honesty that makes for a strange wild movie that certainly proved different from viewer to viewer in enjoyment. The film is based on the book of the same name by convicted felon Jordan Belfort, and if you believe what you hear from him, what occurred in the memoir was actually toned down in regards to the levels of debauchery (which already seem high), but we are talking about a movie that fudges with some of the real names (such as Danny Porush, Gregory Coleman, Ira Sorkin, and even Belfort's two wives). If the subject depicted on screen found the film to be fairly accurate, can one really go wrong? If you hear it from his partner Porush (fellow convict and apparent gold-fish consumer), one wonders just exactly was accurate in the incidents depicted. Or how about from the attorney that prosecuted him? Just what does want from a biographical black comedy about excess with fraud? You know Belfort is a felon, and I know he is a felon that now does motivational speaking, yet here we are. Who are we kidding though? It is a movie about people who can't help but want to make money (and lots of it). I think maybe this is a barometer film for those who look at films for their content or about what they really say as a whole, where one could really either find to be a blistering roar of humor within ethical malaise, or perhaps a film bloated on purpose too much for its own good to mean anything. We could go through the wheelbarrow of things to describe al day, whether that means little people being tossed, yacht crashing, shaven heads for big money, etc, etc. I think I fall into the former category, because I did like what I saw here, but there always seems to be something gnawing in my mind that knows it is just pretty good rather than great. If I want a film with more balance towards the authorities with fraud, I could just pass a glance to an American Greed rerun. It is wild, crude, unbalanced, and everything in the book of what makes a film ripe for unrestrained potential. One obviously starts with DiCaprio in highlighting the biggest strength. Simply put, he does a great job in generating a sort of feral charisma, a man you can find yourself yelling along with in the breakroom even when you the viewer knows the result of said practice-making. His asides and voiceovers throughout the film help as well in generating a fascinating performance, one that dazzles the viewer in his range in where he progresses in the pursuit of money and vices that come from such ravenous appetite, and perhaps it isn't surprising that he equated Belfort to being like a "modern-day emperor Caligula". Hill was so desperate to work with Scorsese and play that part that he took a significant pay-cut to do so. Clearly, it seemed to pay off well for Hill, who is such a rapid-fire presence of excellence, one that seems exactly in his element to be part of the pursuit for money as a creature of brashness and budding one-two act with DiCaprio, one that can make eating a goldfish not seem like a hammy moment. Robbie works well in those moments spent with DiCaprio that are dazzling in allure for what is needed in a film building people up in currency beyond just the money on the table. Chandler is the carefully smooth figure in authority, driven in those little moments without needing to be a bigger focus - the sequence on the yacht with him and DiCaprio is a skillful one to see the wheels turn in cat-and-mouse play. Reiner, the TV star-turned-director-turned-occasional actor, does well in handing in some blustery sense that is needed. Bernthal lends a deliberate coarse hand that works with the other associates seen mostly for the first half alongside the other associates of growing wry sellers. McConaughey isn't in the film long, but the chest beating and humming scene is easily the sparkplug scene that rolls the film along rightly, while others lend supportive hands for dubious measures in Favreau, Dujardin and Lumley. As a whole, it is definitely a film to set a whole day for to see the mayhem of moral bankruptcy for three hours that will reward those who find its intent useful without thinking it as unsubtle. If you are into what the film is selling, go right on ahead for one of the most interesting features to sit through for its era from a prime duo worthy of seeing on screen to do it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

Review #1251: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

Cast: 
Leonardo DiCaprio (Rick Dalton), Brad Pitt (Cliff Booth), Margot Robbie (Sharon Tate), Emile Hirsch (Jay Sebring), Margaret Qualley (Pussycat), Timothy Olyphant (James Stacy), Julia Butters (Trudi Fraser), Austin Butler (Charles "Tex" Watson), Dakota Fanning (Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme), Bruce Dern (George Spahn), Mike Moh (Bruce Lee), Luke Perry (Wayne Maunder), Damian Lewis (Steve McQueen), Al Pacino (Marvin Schwarz), Brenda Vaccaro (Mary Alice Schwarz), Kurt Russell (Randy), Zoë Bell (Janet), and Lorenza Izzo (Francesca Cappucci) Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, #1180 - Reservoir Dogs, and #1218 - Pulp Fiction)

Review: 
It is not a surprise to find myself watching a love letter to a time long since past in terms of movies, particularly since it is a Tarantino movie but also because of the intrigue of seeing such an interesting time like 1969 come to life. It attempts to talk a grand tale of fact and fiction with a cavalcade of actors and images that surely make for an ambitious piece of entertainment. The final result is something that will surely work wonders in terms of design and energy, although it holds itself together with a paste that may very well be described as frantic excess. Tarantino clearly wanted to make a great sprawling tale much in the same vein of other films of the 1960s that has its cake and eats plenty of it in a 161 minute run-time that his fans will probably clamor for (while wondering was left on the cutting floor) while others will probably wonder why it wanders for so long on certain aspects while leaving other parts less covered, with the ending being one of those moments ripe for discussion for quite a while, alongside other moments.

In a sea of actors spread out from substantial to one-scene wonder, DiCaprio and Pitt are game to lead the way in delivering plenty of enthusiasm and charm in respective ways that carry the film steady. DiCaprio in particular shines as a falling star pastiche, where one can see his fading attempts at what was and what could be in the changing of the time. Pitt joins that same kind of road with vigor that rolls right along when all is said and done. Robbie, the last of the main trio, doesn't have as much to say but does make a key impression of warmth and charm whenever we see her, such as when she sees herself in The Wrecking Crew in a theater while enjoying what she sees of her fictional comic relief lead. She plays her time for a part that doesn't fall under complete biopic structure - which can either prove fine or a bit disappointing. Others make their mark, some more than others. Qualley and Butters each make their mark count, conveying plenty of conviction in where they stand in the moment, the former being a marker of descent into the other side of 1969 Hollywood and the latter a young (but aspiring) talent firmly in the system in a changing time. Butler, Fanning and Dern also contribute for a scene with wiry impact, and it is sure is nice to see Russell make his mark from time to time. The actors with one-shot moments in the TV scenes (Olyphant and Perry) do fairly well with representing the time in helping making a show as forgotten as Lancer come to life again. Moh and Lewis are fine if not too particularly important in the grand scheme.

Once it garners itself to setting a conclusion (complete with narration that certainly feels a bit wry when coming from Russell), the film has already garnered enough enticement that you don't really want it to ever come crashing down (to say nothing of the request from Tarantino to avoid spoiling the film before release, which is a bit strange to say in a quasi fact/fiction film). It fights against the dawn of a different kind of Hollywood and the sign of the times itself that surely can resonate with those who seek the resonance that was a decade such as the 1960s without devolving too much into an old man argument. It aspires to have its cake and eat it too, doing plenty of both with no shame. It is a film that certainly will have fans who will find joy with its decisions (such as its visual and musical choices), but it isn't impossible to find aspects that test the grounds of patience if not in the mood for all the roads wanting to be covered by Tarantino. I enjoyed a good chunk of what I saw, and it could either teeter at the high or low end of his directorial efforts when all is said and done, which is a pretty good testament to his craft. After one views a tale like this, they will likely leave their theater with acceptance with what they saw - the times of big stars and big sights like drive-in theaters and the like may not resonate as much as they did before, but there sure is still something to enjoy then as in now when it comes to the movies and showmanship. It is a bittersweet tribute that succeeds more often than not with plenty of charm and entertainment value to go around that surely will endure just as much as the people that came from it did.
Any movie where a bunch of hippies are beaten to hell does tend to win praise from me, too.
Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Suicide Squad.

Review #828: Suicide Squad.

Cast
Will Smith (Floyd Lawton / Deadshot), Jared Leto (Joker), Margot Robbie (Harleen Quinzel / Harley Quinn), Joel Kinnaman (Rick Flag), Viola Davis (Amanda Waller), Jai Courtney (Digger Harkness / Captain Boomerang), Jay Hernandez (Chato Santana / El Diablo), Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Waylon Jones / Killer Croc), Cara Delevingne (Dr. June Moone / Enchantress), Karen Fukuhara (Tatsu Yamashiro / Katana), Adam Beach (Christopher Weiss / Slipknot), Ike Barinholtz (Griggs), and Scott Eastwood (GQ Edwards) Directed by David Ayer (#694 - Fury)

Review
Earlier in the year (April Fool's Day to be exact), I saw DC's attempts at setting up the Justice League with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (#788), which was...divisive to say. For me, it was a bad muddled mess. Four months later, Suicide Squad attempts to try and bring some sort of humor. It's strange that this review comes nearly two years to the day of when I saw Guardians of the Galaxy (#626), which was also a movie about lesser known heroes as a group, though this one is with villains. So how does this movie hold up? It's as about as muddled as the movie itself. In a way, it's as if someone read the Wikipedia page on Guardians of the Galaxy being successful with a bunch of characters not well known to everyone while skimming through exactly why it was so successful.

Yes, there are parts where the film has humor and some semblance of fun. But by the end of it, one will wonder exactly was edited in and out of the movie, though unlike Dawn of Justice, this movie is marginally better at that department, as well as being a decent, if not flawed movie. Smith does a fantastic job, with a good edge of charisma inside a character devoted to shooting people. Robbie certainly has a good deal of energy to her and the character, which either can come off as right for the film or just a tiny bit grating. For me it was a bit of both, sometimes helping the movie out but also sometimes making the movie a bit annoying, with a costume that veers on being entirely ridiculous (Hot pants? Must hurt after a while). Kinnaman is the straight man in all this lunacy, and he does a fine job in a role that could have been just played with blandness, having some fine moments with Smith while also having some sort of personality. Davis plays her role with no semblance of fakery, completely making for a compelling character trying to wring all these powerful people to do something for her, which works. Courtney is fine, but his character doesn't really get much to do in terms of character development, which could also be said for Fukuhara as Katana, though the latter is slightly more interesting to watch, what with the sword and all. Hernandez is pretty decent, having a surprising turn of characterization near the end that makes the character more than just a fire breathing dude. Akinnuoye-Agbaje, for all the brief times he speaks, is okay. Delevinge does okay, but she isn't given much time until the climax to try and shine, though the main cast overshadows her for the most part. Lastly, there's Jared Leto as the Joker, resembling Macaulay Culkin mixed with Hot Topic...who is the weakest part of the film, for the brief amount of time he was in (probably less than 10 minutes), mainly because his scenes derail the momentum along with having no real sort of charisma, coming off as a wannabe Joker. The scenes with Joker and Harley Quinn sometimes work, but honestly they're less compelling than the scenes with the actual squad. I understand the dynamic between the two, but I also understand that I could just watch Batman: The Animated Series if I wanted to see that dynamic not distract from the actual film. It's strange that the Joker kinda just disappears right before the climax, though if you don't like the Joker, it probably helps.

The action scenes are sometimes fun, but other times it feels muddled in grey/blue, with about as much shooting as one would expect. The effects are also fine, if not sometimes a bit distracting (especially with Killer Croc). Honestly, the movie is muddled between action and quipping lines, seeming like it's trying to emulate Deadpool (#779) at points, but it's also accompanied by a plot that's kind of muddled between recruiting the group (taking around 20-30 minutes) and a climax that plods at times. The music cues that accompany the film in the beginning somewhat work but also seem to be shoehorned in. The group does have at least some chemistry together, in a strange sort of way, considering the nature of their mission. Near the end, it even flashbacks to an earlier scene in a weird way to explain something that probably could've just been explained in dialogue only. Honestly, it either should've gone entirely gritty or go for something a bit more organic, but for me it's an average movie, being the ultimate take it or leave it kind of film that will work for some, but exhaust others. There is a mid-credits scene, which is fairly decent (look, not all movies need a credits scene, but it's a nice little bonus). Experiencing it in a movie theater with a bunch of friends is probably the best way to take the movie in the long run. That, or not paying more than five/six bucks to see it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.