Is Suicide Squad As Bad As They Say?

Yes, yes it is. In fact, it's much worse...

Imagine if The Avengers was the first movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  And then imagine that version of The Avengers started at the battle of Manhattan.  That's, essentially, what Suicide Squad is.  It's a 2 hour third act of a movie without any character set up or development.  It's a movie so bad and disjointed that it should join Catwoman, Green Lantern, and The Fantastic Four (2015) on the Comic Book Mount Rushmore Hall Of Shame.  It's not even bad in a so-good it's bad kind of way... it's just bad, and if it's not the nail on the coffin of the DC Cinematic Universe, it's definitely the lid.

I had high hopes for this movie.  It delivered another spectacular trailer (I'm starting to realize that DC should be in the trailer business and not the movie business), but once the (nasty) reviews started rolling in, I began to gasp.  I started to believe that maybe there was credence to the "Is Rotten Tomatoes conspiring against DC and Warner Bros.?" rumors circulating the interwebs.  The reviews seemed almost personal in a way that would never befall Marvel.  They were the same for Batman v. Superman: Dawn Of Justice and I actually enjoyed that movie (especially the better but not perfect R-rated director's cut).  I talked myself into that being the same for Suicide Squad.  On-set turbulance and reshoot rumors be damned... I was going to enjoy this one.

It was clear from an early stage in this "film" that I was wayyyy wrong.  There is almost no character development, and each Suicide Squad member gets a (really cool) few minute introduction.  Before you know it, the squad is assembled and they're off to "save the world (said in Will Smith's voice).  The trouble is, the main villain isn't even introduced until after they've started their mission.  Essentially, they (and the audience) don't know what their mission is about.  It just goes down hill from there.  They even introduce a Suicide Squad member and kill him off without him ever saying a line of dialogue.  Why should we care about this group when they're so expendable (man, I wish I was sitting through The Expendables 23 instead of this one)?  Jared Leto makes random cameos as The Joker, but his weirdness isn't enough to save this one.  His character seems forced and out of place.

I won't bore you with any more plot details since there isn't a plot.  I really hope DC can pull their stuff together in time for Wonder Woman (another great trailer, by the way).  Justice League is happening, but I doubt the universe survives post JL if Wonder Woman fails.

I'm giving this movie 1 out of 4 stars.  There's a couple bright points in this movie.  Margot Robbie does a great job as Harley Quinn and the graphics for the Squad character intros were really cool.

There's a post credit scene setting The Justice League with Ben Affleck (still the best part of the DC Cinematic Universe) and Viola Davis (who wastes her talents in this one).  In short, DC is working backwards.  They're introducing the cart before the horse and it's hurting their product.  I'm glad I had a gift card and didn't waste money on Suicide Squad.

Finally... Dear Hollywood... please stop trying to make Jai Courtney happen.  K, thanks!

Bourne Again: Jason Bourne

Welcome back to the final installment of Bourne Again.  This time, I'm taking you through the latest film in the Bourne series, Jason Bourne.

As I was watching this, I couldn't help but hearken back to summers at my grandmother's house.  Why's that, you ask?  Well, she did not have cable and got limited channels through her antenna in the room my sister and I stayed in.  We would spend all day watching infomercials on that television and then would run out and beg our mother to order whatever product they were schilling.  The Ronco Food Dehydrator?  Had to have it!  The hand mixer??  Please!  Please!  Please!  And so on and so forth... Why am I talking about infomercials when I should be reviewing Jason Bourne?  I'll tell you... You know that point in the infomercial when they've laid out their sales pitch?  "Get xxx product for three easy payments of $39.99!  We'll throw in this and that and this... all for the same low price!"  Great deal, right?  This is where they throw in  their world famous line... "But wait, there's more!"  No way!!!  I want more!  But it's usually nothing special and doesn't add to the value of the original product.

That's where Jason Bourne fits into the Bourne series of films.  It's the "More" in that world famous line.  We don't need it.  It doesn't add anything of value to the original product.  But it's still nice to be offered as an add-on.

To me, the original three films in this series tell a perfect story.  The Bourne Identity starts with a total amnesiac Jason Bourne floating in the water.  By the time The Bourne Ultimatum is finished, Jason Bourne has returned to the water... this time with all his memories in tact.  His journey is complete and he's fully at peace.  Or so we thought...

Jason Bourne picks up nine years after the last film and Damon's character is still struggling with PTSD flashbacks.  He's still piecing together bits from his past.  And, as it appears, he's living his life as a traveling street fighter.  Before you know it, the CIA is on his tail and we're off on another whirlwind adventure across multiple contents.

Much has been made about Matt Damon's limited dialogue in this film, but I was actually OK with it.  What I had a problem with was the rest of the cast (with the exception of an acerbic Tommy Lee Jones chewing scenery like a boss!).  To call them wooden would be an insult to trees.  It's almost as if they just recorded rehearsals and filled in the scenes with action.

Speaking of action, director Paul Greengrass stages some pretty exciting scenes (though the shakiness of the camerawork was almost unbearable to watch during certain chases).  A chase through a demonstration in Greece was quite fun (wooden performance from Julia Stiles aside), and the final sequence through Las Vegas was on par with previous films.  However, Greengrass isn't reinventing the wheel here, which is probably the film's biggest problem.  It doesn't take the series in any new directions, which in my opinion, it desprately needed to.

I hope in future installments (and the box office numbers justify them) they get rid of this amnesia storyline and allow Jason Bourne to go in new directions.

I'm giving this film 2 out of 4 stars.  It wasn't a bad movie... it wasn't a good movie.  It was just a movie.  I enjoyed it, but wasn't as riveted to the material as in the previous trilogy.

Play It Again, Sam: The Grand Budapest Hotel

Welcome back to my latest series: Play It Again, Sam.  For those of you not familiar with this series, I'll explain it for you... I'm revisiting popular films that I initially did not like,  to see if I'm able to come around upon second viewing.  After revisiting the Dino-sized dud, Jurassic World, it's time for me to revisit another move that I initially did not like... The Grand Budapest Hotel.

To say that I did not originally like this film would be an understatement.  Thanks to the magic of Facebook's "On this day" feature, I came across my original review.  Here it is in its entirity:  The Grand Budapest Hotel feels less like a Wes Anderson movie and more like a Saturday Night Live sketch lampooning a Wes Anderson movie.  Every scene, character, piece of music, set, etc. turns up the Wes Andersoning level to 11.  I can respect this movie for the effort, but sometimes it's ok to admit that there's such a thing as too much Wes Anderson."

Maybe I was a little too harsh in my initial reaction to this film?  There's only one way to find out.

I'll tell you the scene that really did it for me.  Early on in the film, an elder Moustafa (played by the great F. Murray Abraham) is retelling the story of the hotel over dinner to a reporter played by Jude Law.  In the far distance of that scene, Jason Schwartzman walks through the scene and turns to the camera to make a totally unnecessary grimace.  I was done after that.  Look, I love Wes Anderson.  The Royal Tenenbaums is one of my favorite movies of all-time, but this scene just chapped my ass.  I've dubbed Wes Anderson "The Kubrick of Quirk" for a reason.  He is as obsessive and meticulous about every scene of his film the way Stanley Kubrick legendarily was about his.  Every inch of celluloid has been intricately pained by Anderson.  I have no doubt that turn to the camera was an instruction, and not a piece of improvisation.  There was no reason for it other than to show off, and I just couldn't get in to this film.

Now, watching this movie again and knowing what I was in for, I was able to view it through a new lens and appreciate it for the great film that I couldn't see initially.  Upon further review, The Grand Budapest is a great (but far from Anderson's best) film.

All of Wes Anderson's calling cards are present in this film.  The poetic script, long dolly shots through intricately designed set pieces, and quirky characters are all there.  I also particularly enjoyed Anderson's use of different aspect ratios to delineate time periods this time around.  This is also a gorgeous film that is well-deserving of all the Academy Awards that it won.

The highlight of The Grand Budapest Hotel is how the two leads (brilliantly portrayed by Ralph Fiennes & Tony Revolori) both deal with growing up and growing old (another Anderson calling card).  They were both funny, charming, and self-deprecating in a way that I didn't appreciate before.  I'd say that the one theme central to all of Anderson's movies is how we deal with growing up, and that's certainly the highlight of this film.  We see Zero at the dawn of his career at the hotel, while we see Gustave (Fiennes) dealing with the twilight of his career, while teaching Zero the ropes.  All the shenanigans these two characters get in to are just icing on the cake to a story most of us can relate to.

I was definitely wrong about this one and I'm really glad that I revisited The Grand Budapest Hotel.

Until next time...